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.

Teen girls “are experiencing record high levels of violence, sadness, and suicide risk,” according to a new survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2021, according to the survey, nearly 3 in 5 U.S. teen girls reported feeling “persistently sad or hopeless.”

Meanwhile, a conservative judge in Texas has delayed his ruling in a case that could ban a key drug used in medication abortion. A group of anti-abortion doctors is suing to challenge the FDA’s approval decades ago of the abortion pill mifepristone.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Panelists

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• American teenagers reported record rates of sadness in 2021, with especially high levels of depression in girls and teens identifying as LGBTQ+, according to a startling CDC report. Sexual violence, mass shootings, cyberbullying, and climate change are among the intensifying problems plaguing young people.
• New polling shows more Americans are dissatisfied with abortion policy than ever before, as a U.S. district court judge in Texas makes a last call for arguments on the fate of mifepristone. The case is undermining confidence in continued access to the drug, and many providers are discussing using only misoprostol for medication abortions. Misoprostol is used with mifepristone in the current two-drug regimen but is safe and effective, though slightly less so, when used on its own.
• There are big holes in federal health privacy protections, and some companies that provide health care, like mental health services, exploit those loopholes to sell personal, identifying information about their customers. And this week, Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia blocked a state law that would have banned search warrants for data collected by menstrual tracking apps.
• California plans to manufacture insulin, directly taking on high prices for the diabetes drug. While other states have expressed interest in following suit, it will likely be up to wealthy, populous California to prove the concept.

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

Julie Rovner: NPR’s “Is the Deadly Fungi Pandemic in ‘The Last of Us’ Actually Possible?” by Michaeleen Doucleff

Alice Ollstein: The New York Times’ “Childbirth Is Deadlier for Black Families Even When They’re Rich, Expansive Study Finds,” by Claire Cain Miller, Sarah Kliff, and Larry Buchanan; interactive produced by Larry Buchanan and Shannon Lin

Joanne Kenen: NPR’s “In Tennessee, a Medicaid Mix-Up Could Land You on a ‘Most Wanted’ List,” by Blake Farmer

Sandhya Raman: Bloomberg Businessweek’s “Zantac’s Maker Kept Quiet About Cancer Risks for 40 Years,” by Anna Edney, Susan Berfield, and Jef Feeley

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The CDC’s “U.S. Teen Girls Experiencing Increased Sadness and Violence”
• The Fun Violence Archive’s “Mass Shootings in 2023”
• The Washington Post’s “Now for Sale: Data on Your Mental Health,” by Drew Harwell

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Kids Are Not OK

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: The Kids Are Not OKEpisode Number: 285Published: Feb. 16, 2023

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, Feb. 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. Today we are joined via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning.

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have the winner of KHN’s health policy valentines contest. I hope everyone had a pleasant Valentine’s Day with someone that you love. But first, this week’s health news. I’m calling our lede segment this week “The Kids Are Not OK,” and we’ll get to the gun violence stuff in a minute. First is news from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey. And let me just read from the press release, quote, “Nearly 3 in 5 — 57% — of U.S. teen girls felt persistently sad or hopeless in 2021, double that of boys representing a nearly 60% increase, and the highest level reported over the past decade.” According to the survey, teens who identify as LGBTQ+ have, quote, “ongoing and extreme distress. More than 1 in 5 of that group said they had attempted suicide in the year before the survey.” Now, clearly, 2021 was a bad year for most of us. The pandemic was still raging, but the political fights over things like vaccines and masking were raging, too. But these rates of mental health problems found by the biannual survey of high school students has gone up in every report since 2001. Why is this happening? What is wrong with our young people and what can we do to help?

Kenen: Well, whatever’s wrong with our young people is going to also be wrong with our old people. I mean, we create the world in which … I mean, I’m a mother and I’m an aunt and I’m an extended-family motherly person. There’s something about the world that we have created for our young people. Julie, we grew up in the Cold War. We grew up … we don’t remember the missile crisis and things like that. But we did grow up in an era of anxiety, existential threats. And yet, for our generation, it wasn’t as bad as it is for this generation. And in this generation, you look at kids who seem to be on top of the world, and they feel like the world is on top of them.

Rovner: Well, at least in my case, you couldn’t be bullied unless you were in person … which is not true anymore.

Kenen: But even 2000, 2001, it wasn’t. That’s not the only thing going on here. And it’s not only the pandemic. I mean, it’s lots of things.

Ollstein: What really jumped out to me in this data was the really high rates of rape and sexual violence. You know, the CDC has said that 1 in 5 teen girls have experienced sexual violence just in the past year, and more than 1 in 10 say they’ve been forced to have sex. This was grouped together with the mental health, depression, suicidal ideation data, indicating that these things are related. And so I think in order to pinpoint some factors, it really seems like … people don’t know how to relate to each other in a sexual way that’s healthy. I think a lot about the efforts to restrict education about sex and sexuality in schools and how that could potentially make this even worse.

Rovner: And remember, this is a survey of high school students. So these are younger young people, or at least early in their, you know, sexual awareness.

Kenen: Yeah, but there was assault and unwanted … there was ugly stuff in prior generations, tons of it. And it wasn’t … and in some ways it was more secretive and more shameful. I mean, I’m not saying it’s not a problem. It’s obviously a huge problem. Alice is right. But it’s not unique to this generation. It’s hard to measure because we weren’t looking for it. But it certainly wasn’t something that didn’t happen. But I think it was even more secretive in the past. So I agree with Alice, but I don’t think that’s all of it.

Rovner: Sandhya.

Ollstein: And you’re right that it’s hard to know for past generations.

Kenen: But they didn’t ask that question.

Ollstein: Since they’ve been asking, it’s gotten worse. They say it’s … sexual violence is up 20% since 2017. Rape is up 27% since 2019. So since they’ve been investigating this, it’s getting worse.

Raman: I would also add the cyberbullying element is a huge piece. You know, if we were looking at this maybe 20 years ago, that was not the same case. The amount of time that teens and young people spend online is much greater now, even within the data they looked at it — that cyberbullying was a lot higher for teens, for LGBTQ youth. And that has been a broad issue that, even this week in Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee was looking at protecting kids online. And a huge element of that was cyberbullying. You heard from different parents who had lost a child due to excessive cyberbullying on a lot of these social media apps and due to suicide or other mental health issues. And I think that’s a huge piece of now versus, you know, several years ago.

Rovner: Yeah, I agree. Well, clearly, one factor in the declining mental well-being of high school students is the threat of being swept up in a mass shooting event. As if this week’s shooting at Michigan State University wasn’t awful enough, some of the students who had to shelter in place for hours in East Lansing were also survivors of the Oxford, Michigan, high school shooting in 2021. And there was even one student that we know of who was at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012. Now, in college, there have been 71 mass shootings, defined as an incident in which four or more people are shot or killed, so far in 2023, according to the Gun Violence Archive, and it’s only the middle of February. And just in time, Gallup reports that 63% of Americans are dissatisfied with the nation’s gun laws. Up 7 percentage points from last year and the highest level in 23 years. Is there any way to get this any closer to the top of the issues for lawmakers to address? I mean, they got something tiny done last year, but it feels like the problem is just exploding.

Raman: No, I was going to say, even last year with the incremental stuff was really difficult to get across the board. And, even going back to the CDC data, there were survey results about how many kids are afraid to go to school right now. And that was one of the factors that was rising. And gun violence is obviously a factor in safety, especially for kids now. But I think on a federal level, getting something additional across the line, especially with this split Congress, is going to be really difficult. It might be more of a state-level thing. I think Michigan is already talking about doing something, but it might have to be more on that end than federal.

Ollstein: Yeah, absolutely. And not only with the divided Congress, but I think a lot of the champions of gun reform on the Republican side have since retired. I’m thinking of Sen. [Pat] Toomey, in particular. And so not only do you have a House-Senate divide, but you don’t have some of the voices on the right calling for this that you’re used to.

Rovner: Yeah, the sides seem to be retreating to the poles, as usual, and the public is not happy about it.

Kenen: Well, one last thing, Julie, really quickly. I mean, I think young people today are very aware of climate as an existential threat, which was not true of prior generations.

Rovner: Yes.

Kenen: And I think kids have this real profound fear. And I think that feeds into the anxiety part of it. At least, you know, they just …

Rovner: Yeah, I think that’s absolutely true. And that’s something that’s been ratcheting up over the past several years as we’ve seen this mental well-being …

Kenen: The pace of damage to the Earth is faster than the scientists had projected.

Rovner: All right. Well, now we’re going to turn to abortion, which is another place where the public is not happy with how it’s being regulated. Yet a different Gallup poll finds Americans more dissatisfied with U.S. abortion policy than any time in 23 years, with a record 69% of adults reporting dissatisfaction. That includes 46% who want less strict laws and only 14% who say they want more restrictions. Yet the political energy seems like it’s with the anti-abortion side, or am I misreading that?

Ollstein: I think there’s a lot of activity on both sides. I mean, Sandhya mentioned Michigan, and I think that’s a spot — along with Minnesota, where Democrats really won big in this past election and want to use their new state-level power to advance some abortion rights measures. But I think you’re seeing a lot more on the “anti-” side, and you’re seeing a lot more splits within the anti-abortion side over how to restrict abortion, how far to go, what kind of exemptions to include, if any. And so you’re seeing a lot more debate, whereas the left, who wants to protect abortion rights, seems a little bit more unified on what they want to do right now. And then, like guns, the federal level is pretty stalemate, roadblock. Nothing much is going to happen there.

Rovner: But also, I think it’s that, you know — and I’m as guilty of this as anybody — that the journalists would rather cover squabbles than people who are actually together. So maybe it’s getting a little more ink. Well, it continues to look like a single federal judge in Texas might well try to ban the abortion pill. mifepristone nationwide. Trump appointee Matthew Kaczmarek did not rule as expected last week in a case charging FDA with wrongly approving the drug 22 years ago. Rather, the judge gave the parties two more weeks to submit briefs, which seems to have prompted every party with the least bit of interest in this case to file amicus briefs. I have never seen anything like this at the federal district court level. It looks like a major Supreme Court case, but it’s not. Has anybody else seen anything like this? I mean, this case seems to be taking on as much importance as your average big Supreme Court case.

Ollstein: It very well could be a Supreme Court case in the future. And I think that’s reflected there, too. And I also want to note that part of the reason for the couple of weeks of delay the judge ordered was to allow the drugmaker to have time to submit arguments because the drugmaker, Danco [Laboratories], says that the different parties in the suit, even the FDA, aren’t really representing their interests and they want to argue for the right to market their product. So that’s pretty interesting. But then, yeah, you have the attorneys general, Democrats, and Republicans lining up on either side of the case. The Republican attorneys general saying, “We support banning this medication nationwide” and the Democratic attorneys general saying, “No, let’s trust the FDA and their scientific process to approve this drug.”

Kenen: I mean, I think there’s sort of a significance in how it’s described because you can say, well, Congress gave the FDA the power to approve drugs. But the anti-abortion movement does not call this a medication abortion. They call it chemical abortion. And therefore, they’re treating this not as a drug but as a lethal chemical. You know, whether the judge goes along with that thinking … we know he’s a strongly anti-abortion judge. There’s no question. And there’s a widespread anticipation that he is going to rule with the anti-abortion side. But we never know what a judge is going to do until a judge does it. And Alice has covered this much more closely than I have, so she’ll probably want to weigh in more. But the issue is, is he going to think that the court should overrule the FDA or is he going to think this is a, quote, “chemical,” not a, quote “medication,” and therefore that the FDA is irrelevant? And I mean, Alice, you can give a better restatement of what I just said since you’ve written about it.

Rovner: I want to respond to Alice’s earlier point about the drug company wanting to get involved, because the big question here, not to get into too much legal minutiae, is why did the people who are suing have standing to sue? They have not been injured by the ability to sell this drug for 22 years. No one’s making them buy it. Arguably, the only party that has standing is the drug company, because if it was cut off, they would lose money. They have an obvious injury here. So the legal niceties of this may not go together either. Alice, do you want to do a follow-up?

Ollstein: Yeah, I mean, to go to the standing issue, the people challenging the FDA approval here are conservative doctors who say that they’ve had to do follow-up treatment for patients who’ve taken the abortion pill and then need follow-up treatment, and that takes their time and attention away from treating other patients. I mean, doctors treating a patient, that’s kind of their job. So I think there’s definitely a question on harm and standing there. Just a couple of thoughts on the case. Abortion rights groups both say that this could be an absolute crisis, disaster across the country. But then they also point out that people will still be able to have medication abortions because the two-pill regimen that’s been used for 20 years, it can still work with just the second pill. So this case is about banning the first pill. The different providers who have spoken out say we’re preparing to just provide abortions via the second pill, if needed.

Rovner: And that second pill, misoprostol, is not going to be pulled off the market. It’s used for many, many things. It just happens it also can end a pregnancy.

Ollstein: Exactly. Way harder to ban. And that’s one thing. Medication abortions will still continue if the judge rules how people expect him to. You know, another thing with all the amicus briefs and the drug company intervening as people are bringing up, if we allow someone to come in 20 years after the fact and challenge FDA approval of something, doesn’t that open Pandora’s box to people challenging all kinds of things, I mean, vaccines and whatnot? And won’t that cause chaos and not make drug companies feel like they can trust the process and have confidence in bringing drugs to market in the U.S.? So that’s another piece of the puzzle as well.

Raman: I would add that there’s already a little bit of chaos because, you know, whatever ruling we have, likely later this month, is almost definitely going to be appealed and then probably appeals again. So it’s going … we could have a back-and-forth process where providers might go one way and then the other. And then, in the contingency stuff they’ve been doing, piggybacking on what Alice was saying, is that if they do this misoprostol regimen, it’s not as straightforward as the two-dose that you’re used to in that there are different amounts of dosage, you might have to do repeated dosages. It’s not as simple, even if that’s done in a lot of other parts of the world. And then some providers have said that they would also just switch to doing all surgical abortions. But that also is more timely. You’d have to do the whole thing in clinic rather than send someone home with the pill. And then that is going to take longer. You’re going to schedule fewer patients. There’s already that many different contingency plans that these clinics are going to have to do regardless of what we hear down the line and through the appeals process.

Rovner: We already know that clinics are backed up from women coming from other states. So patients are having to wait longer to get abortions. And, you know, as … it gets further along, you have to do different procedures that are more expensive. It’s already piling up in different places. Well, speaking of some other different places, we’re seeing a lot of national pro- and anti-abortion groups getting involved in a Wisconsin Supreme Court election, of all things. What is up with that?

Ollstein: Well, that could decide the fate of abortion access in that state. You know, you have the split of a Democratic governor and a Republican legislature. So things really could come down. You know, the state had a pre-Roe ban that went into effect. So things are expected to come down to the makeup of the Supreme Court. And so you’re having just tons of outside money being poured into this race for that reason and really putting a spotlight on how much power are these state supreme courts have. And it’s true in other states as well. And there are many cases pending in different states. You know, I’ve been following the Kentucky one, in particular, but there are a bunch of different cases pending before a state supreme court that could really re-legalize or maintain the ban on abortion.

Kenen: There are also election issues and, on abortion, in the state of Wisconsin, election rules, election certification issues that it’s one of the three or four states where that’s really a hot potato. And that’s another reason this race is getting so much attention. I mean, it’s the state Supreme Court race that’s getting a huge amount of national attention and national money. So there are several issues I would agree with Alice on. The No. 1 is probably abortion. But it’s not only abortion.

Raman: And it’s interesting because this is the first time that EMILY’s List has endorsed ever a state Supreme Court race. And I think another thing to consider is that, you know, this is still considered a nonpartisan race since it’s a court seat. I mean …

Rovner: In theory.

Raman: In theory, yes. Even though all of these groups are looking at the histories of how people have ruled in the past. But I think that’s another thing that makes it a little bit more interesting given it’s not strictly a Democrat or Republican endorsement, like a lot of the other things that we’ve been following.

Rovner: Yes. And I saw on the other side the Susan B Anthony List, the anti-abortion group, said … put out a press release this week saying they’re going to have six-figure spending in Wisconsin on this race. So …

Kenen: It’ll be very good for the Wisconsin economy.

Rovner: It will be very good for the Wisconsin economy. Well, anti-abortion lawmakers are busy in a bunch of states pursuing another new trend, giving tax breaks to so-called crisis pregnancy centers that, at least when abortion was legal, lured pregnant women in by pretending to be an abortion clinic and then trying to convince them not to terminate their pregnancies. Missouri has already allowed donors to these crisis pregnancy centers to write off contributions on their state taxes. Now, Kansas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma are considering similar programs, but Kansas is the only one of those states where abortion is still legal. What are CPCs going to do now that they can’t pose as abortion facilities?

Raman: I think there’s still a lot of confusion for folks. I mean, given how a lot of these laws have been changing back and forth. I mean, even as folks that follow this very closely, there’s so many different things where someone … I think we’ve looked at polling before where people don’t always know: Is abortion illegal or not legal in our state? Or at what point? It’s difficult to keep track of, with so many changes going back and forth. So I think that there could feasibly still be people who might be looking for an abortion that don’t understand or — we’ve seen that a lot of these clinics have also bought a lot of ads so that you might be searching for an abortion and you get redirected to one of these clinics. So I think there’s still overlap in folks that might be searching for one and end up at another.

Kenen: I don’t know how much online presence they have, because that could be across state lines. You know, if someone’s on or near a border, there’s all sorts of … people might think that surgical abortions are legal, but medication is not, or that they can or someone could help them order pills. You can never underestimate how confused Americans are about any number of things. So … but they also might …

Rovner: This is confusing, to be fair.

Kenen: Yes. But they also might concentrate their efforts less on the no-abortion states and move more to the abortion states. Or they may advertise in ways that captures or attempts to capture people who are looking to go out of state or to get a cross-state-line prescription, whatever. They can promote themselves in different ways. Or they may also just decide to not do as much in Texas and do a lot more in upstate New York. I mean, I don’t know how they’re going to totally respond to the legal landscape either.

Ollstein: Yeah. And they’ve also become sort of a legal force of their own. I know they’re involved in challenging some of California’s pro-abortion rights policies. The CDC is specifically. So they also have … are trying to play a role on that front, in addition to direct patients’ interface or however we want to phrase it.

Rovner: All right. Well, while we’re talking about patients’ privacy, I want to talk about data. First, a kind of terrifying story from The Washington Post this week details how data brokers have been selling the names and addresses of people with depression, anxiety, and other mental health disorders so they can be advertised to. A lot of this has come from people using mental health apps or websites that are not covered by the HIPAA privacy rules because they are not technically covered health entities. A separate story this week notes how Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin helped defeat a bill in the Virginia legislature to provide legal protections to women’s menstrual data contained in period tracking apps. A Virginia official who was opposing the bill said it would put limits on search warrants, which could lead to other problems down the road. One researcher described the privacy practices of the vast majority of mental health apps as, quote, “exceptionally creepy.” How concerned should we be about all of this?

Kenen: I found that really horrifying. And a family friend who had been looking for a therapist and I said, well, maybe — and they were having trouble finding somebody in network and it’s very expensive — and I said, “Well, maybe you should look into some of the online ones that do take insurance.” And after reading that, I told that person, “I’m not so sure that it’s a good idea.” And we do have a shortage of mental health providers in this country. We have an even greater shortage of mental health providers that take insurance. There’s been a lot of talk about how telemedicine for mental health is at least part of the answer. But this should really raise … because they’re not just selling de-identified data. Some of them in that article were selling people’s names, address, diagnosis, and medical history. If it was truly, truly, truly de-identified, it’s different then. And that can be used for research. But a lot of what’s so-called de-identified isn’t de-identified. And this doesn’t even pretend to be. This is, like, search, and you can find out who the person is, an awful lot of intimate detail about their lives. So unless there’s some real safeguards, would you want any of your medical data with your name on it being sold? No. It is. It is being. But …

Rovner: When the HIPAA rules first went into effect, which was around the year 2000, actually  it took a few years — researchers came to Capitol Hill screaming because they were afraid they weren’t going to be able to get any of this de-identified data and they weren’t going to be able to continue to do research. Now, we seem to have gone far in the other direction. And I know that there are efforts on Capitol Hill to do things to update the women’s reproductive information, keeping that private. Anybody think that they might get into an expansion of HIPAA? I mean, that’s really all it would take would be to create more covered entities.

Raman: Yeah, it isn’t as much about the expansion of HIPAA, but there have definitely been pretty concerted efforts to get … the U.S. doesn’t have a comprehensive data privacy law. You know, in contrast to, like, the EU or something. And that has been a big effort for the lawmakers that are focused on tech policy for a while. Even the hearing earlier this week with Senate Judiciary, they brought up several bills. And the issue has been that all of these issues are bipartisan, folks are on board. It’s just not enough people are on board, and little things that have been getting in the way there. And so that has been an issue. And I think even during that hearing, we had one researcher bring up different sites — like NEDA, which is mentioned in some of these lawsuits by some of the hospitals — have been collecting all of this data. But then they, as researchers, are not able to get access to that data, and that would be extremely beneficial for them to be able to say this is what the impact of some of these things are on kids. So it’s a Catch-22 where it’s, like, OK a) we’re not having the research be able to get the data, b) we’re having it sold in a malicious way and c) we haven’t been able to find a solution to mitigate all of this.

Kenen: Yeah, I don’t know about the prospects for a gigantic tech bill because it has many components and they’re controversial and hard to get 60 votes for. But I think there’s a difference between selling stuff about who bought shoes versus someone who is on an anti-psychotic or an antidepressant or whatever, or getting marital counseling, whatever. I mean, these are not the same issue as the whole constellation of tech issues. I can see this being something bipartisan. HIPAA has been updated a little bit, but the fundamental HIPAA law dates back to what, ’96, Julie? … I think that’s when it was.

Rovner: Yeah, although …

Kenen: It has been updated, but it hasn’t been overhauled to really fit the cyber universe we live in.

Rovner: But also Congress never really did HIPAA. People don’t remember this: The 1996 law basically had a provision that said Congress needs to fundamentally address privacy if we’re going to move more towards digital health records, which at the time was starting to happen. And if they don’t, then the secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to put out regs. And guess what? Congress didn’t do it. So the HIPAA regs that we have now were put out at the end of the Clinton administration. Congress was never able to come together on this. So now things have obviously gotten worse.

Kenen: Yes. And since the Supreme Court now doesn’t like agencies regulating that, that seems to create an entire new existential question. But do I think that medical privacy is something that you could find some kind of bipartisan lanes on? I don’t think a lot of bipartisan things are going to happen in the next two years. This does seem to be one of the few areas that is not a red-blue ideological issue. And I can see Republicans and Democrats being horrified by some of this and maybe not totally sealing it up, but putting … better guardrails on what can be brokered.

Raman: One of the issues has been, I think even in the past, was that California is the one state that has implemented a few layers of very intense data privacy laws. And so, you know, when you have people in leadership that are in from California and it’s hard to get some of those compromises across when it might be more watered down than something California has and take precedent being federal. So it’s one of the many layers of why it’s been difficult over the past year to get any of this stuff done.

Rovner: Well, we should note that the Biden administration is actually working on some enforcement. Earlier this month, the Federal Trade Commission fined the prescription drug discounter GoodRx $1.5 million for illegally sharing customer’s personal health information. It was the very first enforcement action under a 2009 law that applies to health record vendors and others not covered by HIPAA. So at least there’s one avenue where this could be pursued. I imagine we’ll be seeing more of that if not, you know, whether or not they can reach all of these things seems unlikely.

Kenen: Yeah, doing it piecemeal does not seem to be the approach, and I’m not even sure how much $1.5 million is for GoodRx. I don’t think that’s a lot of money for any major pharmaceutical entity.

Rovner: No. And there are a lot of people who use it. All right. Well, finally this week, while we’re talking about drugs, I’ve been trying to get to this for a while. California has — speaking of California, things that other states haven’t done — California has decided to try to limit the cost of insulin for people with diabetes by manufacturing it itself. Could this set a precedent to really disrupt the insulin market, or is California just so big and wealthy that it’s basically the only state that could do something like this — or only state they would do something like this?

Ollstein: So I will note that Gov. [Gretchen] Whitmer in Michigan has also proposed state manufacturing of insulin. So California might not be the only one. I think the idea is that insulin is pretty cheap to manufacture. It’s become the poster child for out-of-control drug prices for that reason — the disparity between what it costs for patients and what it costs to make is so vast. And so I think you are likely to have a few states. But I think it will take a state doing it successfully to get a significant number of others to follow.

Rovner: I think there might be a thought that because California is so big, it could disrupt the market elsewhere — I mean, in the country. That strikes me as a reach. But it’s, you know, Congress, again — talking about things that Congress can’t do — they managed to limit insulin prices for people on Medicare, but not even for everybody else.

Kenen: There was also a good piece in The Atlantic, maybe two or three months ago, that some of these new diabetic drugs, which are injectables and very expensive, mean you don’t need insulin. So … but by addressing making insulin really cheap, which is a good … I mean so people who are on insulin and need insulin … but there are some people who actually could take one of these other drugs and then they wouldn’t be able to afford these other drugs, which might be better for them. And then they’ll end up on cheap insulin. So it’s always more complicated than it sounds. And I also think there’s different kinds of insulin. Someone else on the panel might, you know, that I’m not sure that …

Rovner: There are lots of different formulations.

Kenen: There are two major kinds of diabetes, obviously, Type 1 and Type 2. And then there’s different patients with different degrees of … you know, how far their other health conditions is advanced, etc., etc. So cheap insulin is not even a solution for diabetes. It’s one part of a solution for one of many chronic diseases in America.

Rovner: Well, we will never not have enough things to talk about. That is the news for this week. Now it is time for our extra-credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at khn.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Joanne, why don’t you kick us off this week?

Kenen: Yes. This was a collaboration between NPR, Nashville Public Radio, and Kaiser Health News, aired on NPR by Blake Farmer. “In Tennessee, a Medicaid Mix-Up Could Land You on a ‘Most Wanted’ List.” And basically, Tennessee is cracking down on Medicaid fraud. Most Medicaid fraud is actually from doctors and other health care providers — there have been a bunch of home health scandals and so forth. The amount of fraud and the amount of money involved in patient fraud is small, and yet they’re spending a huge amount of money to try to capture a small amount of fraud. And there are huge mistakes. Like the person in this article was just … she was entitled to Medicaid. She did nothing wrong. But they publicly … like, they don’t even wait for you to be convicted. They’re publishing …  they’re making public the charge. This woman turned out to be … it had to do with an old address on … an expired driver’s license that got the system confused. She was doing nothing wrong, and yet she was completely blacklisted, employment and everything else because she was accused of being a felon in publicly available databases. So, a) are they looking in the right place for fraud? And b) are they protecting people’s rights? Clearly the latter they are not because they were publishing … people were accused but not convicted, and then they weren’t removing it in a timely, effective way. So this woman is, like, unemployable. She can’t rent an apartment, and she did nothing wrong. So there’s a whole series of abuses in this story. Not that Medicaid fraud is a good thing. Medicaid fraud is a bad thing, but this is not the way to go after it.

Rovner: This was one in a series of horrifying stories this week. Alice, you have another horrifying story.

Ollstein: Yes. Although this is under the banner of more evidence to bolster the upsetting things that we sort of already knew. This is a really good piece from The New York Times, laying out a lot of data to show that there is these differences in maternal mortality between Black and white women that can’t be attributed to income, showing that even wealthier Black women still face much worse outcomes. And so they say, you know, even when you account for income, even when you account for education and a lot of other factors, there are still these impacts of structural racism in the health system that continue to put Black mothers more in danger. And so this is coming at a time when there’s a lot of focus on this. But there has been sort of a lot of focus on the income, socioeconomic side and people recommending that states expand postpartum coverage of Medicaid. And that certainly is recommended, and experts think that would help. But this shows that it won’t completely solve the problem and there are other factors to address.

Kenen: And it’s not just in maternal mortality. I mean, the racial disparities in health care are not just income-related.

Rovner: And finally, Sandhya, you have a story from one of our fellow podcast panelists.

Raman: Yeah, the story I picked is “Zantac’s Maker Kept Quiet About Cancer Risks for 40 Years,” and that’s at Bloomberg News from Anna Edney, Susan Berfield, and Jef Feeley. And this was a really great story about Zantac, the heartburn and reflux drug that was once one of the world’s best-selling prescription medications. And then in 2020, it was pulled off the U.S. market over cancer risks. And the article goes through how since its beginnings, Glaxo’s own scientists, the drugmaker, had warned that it could be dangerous, but proving some of this has been a little difficult. … But the story goes through some of the documents that show that Glaxo chose not to look into this, even though the leading health agencies — EPA, FDA, WHO — all say NDMA is a carcinogen.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s quite the investigation. Well worth reading. Well, my story is a little less horrifying than everybody else’s. It’s from my former NPR Science Desk colleague Michaeleen Doucleff and it’s called “Is the Deadly Fungi Pandemic in ‘The Last of Us’ Actually Possible?” And I will cut to the chase. The answer is most almost certainly no. But that’s not to say we shouldn’t be worried about fungi and fungal diseases, particularly as the Earth continues to warm, which is what touches off the pandemic in the video game/HBO miniseries that’s airing now. There are new fungal diseases that can be pretty nasty, too, but zombies, almost certainly not. Well, maybe, certainly not. Anyway, listen to or read Michaeleen’s story. Before we go, this week was Valentine’s Day and, as promised, we have the winner of KHN’s best health policy valentine, as chosen by our editors and social media staff. This year’s winner is Jennifer Goldberg, and it goes as follows: “Roses are red, candy is sweet. Adding #Dental to #Medicare makes it more complete!” Congrats to Jennifer and thanks everyone for your creative health policy valentines.

OK, that’s 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. Joanne?

Kenen: @JoanneKenen

Rovner: Sandhya?

Raman: @SandhyaWrites

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to 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.

Health care was a recurring theme throughout President Joe Biden’s 2023 State of the Union address on Capitol Hill this week. He took a victory lap on recent accomplishments like capping prescription drug costs for seniors on Medicare. He urged Congress to do more, including making permanent the boosted insurance premium subsidies added to the Affordable Care Act during the pandemic. And he sparred with Republicans in the audience — who jeered and called him a liar — over GOP proposals that would cut Medicare and Social Security.

Meanwhile, abortion rights advocates and opponents are anxiously awaiting a federal court decision out of Texas that could result in a nationwide ban on mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortion.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, 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:

• President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address emphasized recent victories against high health care costs, like Medicare coverage caps on insulin and out-of-pocket caps on prescription drug spending. Biden’s lively, informal exchange with lawmakers over potential cuts to Medicare and Social Security seemed to steal the show, though the political fight over cutting costs in those entitlement programs is rooted in a key question: What constitutes a “cut”?
• Biden’s calls for bipartisanship to extend health programs like pandemic-era subsidies for Affordable Care Act health plans are expected to clash with conservative demands to slash federal government spending. And last year’s Senate fights demonstrate that sometimes the opposition comes from within the Democratic Party.
• While some abortion advocates praised Biden for vowing to veto a federal abortion ban, others felt he did not talk enough about the looming challenges to abortion access in the courts. A decision is expected soon in a Texas court case challenging the future use of mifepristone. The Trump-appointed judge’s decision could ban the drug nationwide, meaning it would be barred even in states where abortion continues to be legal.
• The FDA is at the center of the abortion pill case, which challenges its approval of the drug decades ago and could set a precedent for legal challenges to the approval of other drugs. In other FDA news, the agency recently changed policy to allow gay men to donate blood; announced new food safety leadership in response to the baby formula crisis; and kicked back to Congress a question of how to regulate CBD, or cannabidiol, products.
• In drug pricing, the top-selling pharmaceutical, Humira, will soon reach the end of its patent, which will offer a telling look at how competition influences the price of biosimilars — and the problems that remain for lawmakers to resolve.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Kate Baicker of the University of Chicago about a new paper providing a possible middle ground in the effort to establish universal health insurance coverage in the U.S.

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

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “Don’t Let Republican ‘Judge Shoppers’ Thwart the Will of Voters,” by Stephen I. Vladeck

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “Mpox Is Simmering South of the Border, Threatening a Resurgence,” by Carmen Paun

Sarah Karlin-Smith: KHN’s “Decisions by CVS and Optum Panicked Thousands of Their Sickest Patients,” by Arthur Allen

Rachel Cohrs: ProPublica’s “UnitedHealthcare Tried to Deny Coverage to a Chronically Ill Patient. He Fought Back, Exposing the Insurer’s Inner Workings,” by David Armstrong, Patrick Rucker, and Maya Miller

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The Associated Press’ “20 Attorneys General Warn Walgreens, CVS Over Abortion Pills,” by Jim Salter
• NPR’s “A Trump-Appointed Texas Judge Could Force a Major Abortion Pill off the Market,” by Sarah McCammon
• Politico’s “Federal Judge Says Constitutional Right to Abortion May Still Exist, Despite Dobbs,” by Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein
• The Becker Friedman Institute’s “Achieving Universal Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: Addressing Market Failures or Providing a Social Floor?” by Katherine Baicker, Amitabh Chandra, and Mark Shepard

click to open the transcript

Transcript: A Health-Heavy State of the Union

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: A Health-Heavy State of the UnionEpisode Number: 284Published: Feb. 9, 2023

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, Feb. 9, 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 Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi, everybody.

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, Julie.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll play my interview with Kate Baicker of the University of Chicago. She’s one of the authors of a new paper outlining a new proposal for the U.S. to achieve universal health insurance coverage, something every other developing nation already has, but we have not yet been able to achieve. But first, this week’s health news. We’re going to start, of course, with the State of the Union, which was livelier than usual, with way more back and forth than I’ve ever seen at one of these, and also more health-heavy than usual. I’m going to start with entitlements, notably the president threatening Republican proposals to hold the debt ceiling hostage for cuts in Social Security and Medicare. I’m still trying to decide whether this was intended or not, but Biden nevertheless ended up getting Republicans to vow not to demand cuts in Social Security and Medicare in exchange for raising the debt ceiling later this year. Here is the tape.

President Joe Biden: So, folks, as we all apparently agree, Social Security and Medicare is off the books now, right? And they’re not going to strike … [prolonged applause] All right. We got unanimity!

Rovner: So was this very clever or very lucky or both?

Ollstein: Well, it’s a little not quite what it seems. Republicans have been swearing up and down more recently that they never intended to cut Medicare and Social Security. But when they say “We want to reform it, we want to shore it up,” they’re talking about things that could limit benefits for beneficiaries. So it’s a semantics game, in part. I also want to point out that neither Republicans nor Biden have yet said that they consider Medicaid in that same untouchable category. So that really jumped out at me in the speech as well.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, if you don’t touch Social Security or Medicare — and the Republicans are trying to say that because this has been used as a weapon for so many years — then basically that leaves Medicaid. And as we discovered in 2017, when they were trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid is actually pretty popular, too, because it takes care of a lot of people’s grandparents in nursing homes. I’m wondering when somebody is going to bring that up. Obviously, over the years, many, quote-unquote, “cuts” have been made to both Social Security and Medicare, mainly to slow the growth of the programs so that we can continue to afford them. Many more, quote-unquote, “cuts” will have to be made going forward. Every time you reduce payment to a drugmaker or a hospital or any other health care provider, that’s a cut, but it helps beneficiaries. So, you know, you say “cuts,” [and] beneficiaries say “they’re going to cut our benefits.” Not necessarily. They may just be making the program more affordable, including for the beneficiaries. I mean, this is just the continuous back and forth of each side, weaponizing Medicare in particular, right?

Ollstein: Well, and until we see actual proposals on paper, like you’re indicating, it is a semantics game — what some people consider a cut might not be what other people consider a cut. And there’s going to be all sorts of rhetorical games over the next several months along these lines. So, I’m waiting till we see an actual black-and-white proposal that we can all pick at and analyze together.

Rovner: Well, as we have seen, there’s danger in putting things on paper, as Rick Scott discovered this week. For those who don’t remember, it was his rather infamous proposal — was it last summer, I think? It was before the election — suggesting that all federal programs be sunsetted every five years and then have to be reauthorized, which would include Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. And that’s not playing well at this point, as I think was predicted at the time, including by us. So moving on, I was also impressed at how the speechwriters managed to combine the, quote, “victory lap” stuff, record Affordable Care [Act] enrollment, Medicare drug price changes, limits on insulin, and surprise bills with the agenda ahead: expanding insulin price caps to the non-Medicare population, Medicaid expansion in the states that haven’t done it, making the Affordable Care Act subsidies expansions permanent. But none of these things — popular, though they may be — are likely to happen in this Congress, are they? … These are the things that fell out of the bill that passed last year.

Cohrs: Right. A lot of those cost money, which is going to cause even more problems this Congress than it did in the last one. And I thought it was pretty informative that the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House threw cold water on the insulin price-cap idea because it did gain some Republican support in the Senate when it came up for a vote. That was complicated. We won’t go into it. But yeah, it wasn’t a straight up-and-down vote on that policy, really. So I think there was some hope that maybe Republicans could get on board with it. But I think, because it applies to private market insurers, [it was called] a socialist policy, like, they just don’t want government in private plans, even though it’s a wildly popular policy. So, yeah, I think that doesn’t seem like a good signal for that policy in particular and for Medicaid expansion and a lot of these things. Democrats couldn’t even do it when they all agreed or had power in both the House and the Senate. So it’s definitely not a good indication for a lot of these things.

Ollstein: Let’s not forget that [Sen. Joe] Manchin [D-W.Va.] was the one who put the kibosh on the federal Medicaid expansion. He thought it wasn’t fair to states like his that expanded a long time ago and have been paying in a little bit. He thought it wasn’t right that states that were holdouts get a free ride. And the other Democrats argued back that it’s not fair for the residents in those states to be left out in the cold uninsured either. So this will continue. But like Rachel said, not going anywhere soon.

Rovner: So the things that in theory could happen, and these didn’t mostly come up in the speech or didn’t come up very much. But earlier in the day, Biden officials were floating a quote-unquote, “unity agenda” that included a long list of potentially bipartisan health issues, starting with the “cancer moonshot,” mental health and opioid treatment, strengthening the mental health parity rules. Some of these things actually could happen, right?

Cohrs: Yeah, I think especially on the mental health package, I think there was some unfinished business from last Congress, from the Senate Finance Committee. I think that all of these are issues that have been talked about this Congress already. And the leaders have signaled that they might be interested in. But I think there is some daylight here, and we’re still in very much the agenda-setting, throwing ideas out there that are a very vague part of this Congress. And I think actually getting things down on paper and going through hearings and that kind of thing will signal which areas there might actually be some agreement on. But again, spending is going to be a big challenge and there’s just not going to be time to get to everything.

Rovner: I think one of my frustrations is that normally the State of the Union comes right before the president’s budget comes out, usually within a week or two. And this year, the president’s budget isn’t coming out until March 9. So we have this, you know, talk about agenda-setting. We’re going to have a lot of time for people to just yap at each other without any specifics. But speaking of things that didn’t and aren’t likely to happen, the president didn’t talk very much about abortion. And what he did say — like threatening to veto any abortion ban Congress might pass, which won’t happen either with Democrats in charge of the Senate — that disappointed abortion rights supporters. They’re not happy, right, Alice?

Ollstein: Some were not. To be fair, some praised the speech, praised the president for saying the word “abortion.” This was a big thing over much of his career, including the beginning of his presidency. He would talk around it and not actually say the word “abortion,” which the groups felt contributed to stigma around it. And so the big mainstream groups, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, put out statements praising the speech, praising him for saying he would veto a ban, although, again, like you said, that’s a hypothetical. It’s not going to happen. But some other groups were critical that, one, he didn’t talk about some of the very looming direct threats to abortion access in the courts that we’re probably going to get to later.

Rovner: In a minute.

Ollstein: Just in a minute! But they were frustrated that he didn’t lay out more specifics that his administration will actually do to respond to the current loss of access in a lot of the country. They felt that we’re in a crisis moment and he spent less of the speech on abortion than he did on resort fees. That was a sore point for some advocates who I talked to.

Rovner: There was a lot of emphasis on junk fees. And I get why: These are the things that drive people crazy, and, particularly, in times of high inflation. But yes, abortion came very late in the speech — almost after a lot of people had tuned out and stopped paying attention, which I think also made some people unhappy. Well, speaking of abortion, here we are waiting for another make-or-break court decision out of Texas. Alice, this time it’s the future of the “abortion pill,” not just in Texas, but around the nation that’s at stake. How did we get here? And could we really see the abortion pill banned nationwide?

Ollstein: We really could. People have really been sleeping on this case, including some elected officials who were slow to realize the impact it could have. And mainly what people don’t understand is a bunch of states already ban all methods of abortion, including the pill, and then some additional states besides that have restrictions just on the pill. So this will mainly hit blue states and states where abortion access still exists. And so it could really have a huge impact because those states are now serving more than just their own populations. And in a lot of places, losing access to medication abortion means losing access to all abortion because there aren’t clinical services available. And so my colleague and I did some reporting on how the Biden administration is preparing or not for this ruling. They rebuffed calls from activists to declare a public health emergency for abortion. They said they don’t think that would help. While they do plan to appeal the ruling should the FDA lose, the upheaval that could happen in the meantime can’t really be overstated. And not to mention that an appeal would go to the 5th Circuit, which is very conservative, and then to the Supreme Court, which just overturned Roe v. Wade. And so while most experts we’ve talked to don’t think the legal arguments are that sound, you just can’t really …

Rovner: And remind us, this is the lawsuit that’s challenging the 22-year-old approval of the drug in the first place.

Ollstein: Exactly. And so health care legal experts also say that besides the absolute upheaval in the abortion space that this could cause, this would just completely destroy any certainty around drug approvals for the FDA. If anybody could come back decades later and challenge the approval of a drug, how can drugmakers feel comfortable developing and submitting things for approval and making their plans around that? It’s very chaotic.

Rovner: Sarah, is the FDA worried about this case? Has it not been on their radar either?

Karlin-Smith: I mean, they’re involved in the defense.

Rovner: They’re being sued.

Karlin-Smith: Right. I think it is a concern if this is used, right? If the folks who want this drug pulled would win, does it become precedent-setting in a way that you can get other products pulled? Perhaps. Again, the sentiments would not be there for a lot of other products in the way to use it. But it is a bit concerning when you think about judges having this power to overrule the scientific decisions we’ve left to civil servants, not politicians or judges, because they have expertise in science and medicine and clinical trial design and all these things we just would not expect judges to be able to rule on.

Rovner: Well, speaking of more politics, this week — actually, last week — a group of 20 state attorneys general from states with abortion restrictions wrote to CVS and Walgreens, which had already announced that they would apply to become providers of the abortion pill, warning them not to rely on the Justice Department’s interpretation of a 19th-century law that banned the use of the U.S. mail to send abortifacients. The letter doesn’t outright threaten the companies. It merely says that, quote, “We offer you these thoughts on the current legal landscape.” Has anybody sued over this yet? And what do we expect to happen here? I mean, are CVS and Walgreens going to back off their plans to become providers?

Ollstein: Well, the anti-abortion elected officials and advocacy groups are hoping that’s the case. But I think this could play out in so many ways. I mean, one, we have this national ruling that could come down, but we also have a few state rulings that could flip things the other way and force states that have put restrictions on the abortion pill to lift those restrictions and allow it. So now we have cases pending in North Carolina and West Virginia. One of them is by the manufacturer of the abortion pill, saying that states don’t have the right to put the FDA’s hat on their own heads and make those decisions. And the other is by an abortion provider, a doctor who says that these state restrictions hurt her ability to practice and hurt her patients. And so it’s just wild that we can swing anywhere from a national ban to forcing states with bans to lift those bans. I mean, it’s just all up in the air right now. I wanted to quickly point out two other things. A lot of activist groups say they are not counting on the Biden administration to adequately respond to this crisis. And so they’re doing a couple things. One, they’re encouraging people to do something known as “advance provision,” which is order abortion pills before they’re pregnant, before you need them, and just have them on hand just in case. And so they’re advising people do that in advance of the ruling. Interestingly, the FDA does not support that practice, but activist groups are encouraging it anyways. And then the other thing is the abortion pill regimen is actually two pills. And the big FDA lawsuit only goes after the first one. And so people are saying, you know, you can terminate a pregnancy just by taking a few of the second pill, even though that has a higher rate of not working and needing a follow-up procedure. And so …

Rovner: Although it’s still like, 95%, right?

Ollstein: It’s still very effective, but not quite as effective as using the two pills together.

Rovner: And I think it used to be when people would go to Mexico, that’s what they would get. They would get misoprostol, not mifepristone, which is what we think of as “the abortion pill” — and also methotrexate, which we talked about in the context of people with diseases for which methotrexate is indicated not being able to get it because it can cause abortions. But that’s another option there, right? And … it would be hard for FDA to pull those drugs because those drugs do have a lot of uses for other diseases.

Karlin-Smith: Or FDA could, I guess, be forced to take off the formal indication for use for abortion, but the drug would be out there and then could be subject to off-label prescribing, which then could potentially, I guess, impact insurance coverage if you’re using it for abortion. Pivot to if you had to go back to this one-drug regimen while, yes, it would still exist and be possible, I think a lot of providers are worried about the added burden that would create on folks that help people obtain abortion. And this system is just not set up to have enough workers to deal with that more complicated regimen. And it seems like it could end up leading to more need for surgical abortions, depending on how well it works and so forth. So I think logistically it creates a lot more challenges.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a mess. Well, meanwhile, last issue here, we have a curious story out of a lawsuit in federal district court here in Washington, D.C., in which a judge proffered the notion that while the Supreme Court may have found no right to abortion in the 14th Amendment, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a federal right under the 13th Amendment. That’s the one barring slavery, specifically the restriction on the pregnant person’s personal liberty. As the judge correctly pointed out, the majority in last year’s Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] ruling may well believe there’s no right to abortion anywhere in the Constitution. But that’s not the question that they litigated. Is this potentially an avenue that abortion rights advocates are going to explore?

Ollstein: I am not hearing a lot of hope being placed on this. If it goes anywhere, it would go back to the same Supreme Court that just ruled last year. And so abortion rights advocates are not optimistic about this strategy, but I think it’s a good indication of really both sides right now just trying to get as creative as possible and explore every legal avenue in the U.S. Constitution, in state constitutions, things where it never says the word abortion, but you could interpret it a certain way. I think that’s what we’re seeing right now. And so it’s really interesting to see where it goes.

Rovner: We are literally at the point where everybody is throwing whatever they can against the wall and seeing what sticks. All right. Well, let us turn to the federal research establishment. Late last month, a panel of advisers recommended a set of policies to strengthen oversight of so-called gain-of-function research that could inadvertently cause new pandemics. This was also one of the subjects of the first House hearing that called leading federal public health officials up on the carpet. What do we learn from the hearing? And has the federal government actually been funding gain-of-function research, or do we even know for sure?

Cohrs: So there has been a moratorium on this sort of research. And the interim director of the NIH [National Institutes of Health] quibbled over the term “gain-of-function research.” And he said we’re talking about a very select part of all of the research that could technically fall under that umbrella term. But he did say that there is a moratorium on funding that right now; there’s not current funding because they are reviewing their practices. And an advisory board did pass proposals and he laid out the process forward for that. So once those are finalized, he’ll write a memo to [Department of Health and Human Services] HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, then it will get to the White House. So there is this bureaucratic progression that these new guidelines are going to go under, and it’s been pretty transparent and public so far. But we’ll see how things ultimately turn out. But I think they are very sensitive to this politically and they are trying to create guidelines that offer some lessons learned from some of the criticism they’ve gotten recently.

Rovner: And I think, I mean, this has become one of the major lines of argument about Republicans trying to figure out where covid came from. Perhaps it came from U.S.-funded gain-of-function research in China, which we don’t know, I don’t think. But there’s been a lot of “Yes, you did”-“No, you didn’t” going on. I mean, Sarah, does this go back to the, you know, politicians playing scientists?

Karlin-Smith: A little bit. And I think at the hearing, a lot of the Republicans who are pressuring NIH in particular on this are not super interested in listening to the subtleties and nuance of the argument. They just really want to make the point and bring up in people’s minds the possibility of, you know, covid being a lab leak, which I think … which hasn’t 100% been ruled out, but it’s kind of on the 98%, probably 99% ruled out by a lot of scientists. And so it was very hard for NIH and those lawmakers to have a reasonable discussion about the nuances and where this research might possibly benefit us in future pandemic prep. What type of precautions do need to be put in place? And I think NIH was trying to strive to communicate that actually a lot of what was recommended in this oversight report is things they’ve been working on and have put in place. But the hearing was designed by Republicans more to land those political punches and sound bites and not really delve into “Are there policy improvements that could be made here?”

Rovner: Well, speaking of civil servants trying to do their science policy jobs, the FDA’s been busy the last couple of weeks, including lifting a ban on men who have sex with other men donating blood. That’s a ban that’s been in effect in one way or another since the 1980s, when AIDS was first discovered. And in the wake of baby formula shortages, there’s now going to be a new deputy commissioner for food. And finally, the agency is asking Congress for new authority to regulate CBD [cannabidiol] products, particularly as more states legalize marijuana in all forms for recreational use. Sarah, this is an awful lot of stuff at once. Big policy changes where they try to hide some of them, or did they just all show up at once because that’s when they got finished?

Karlin-Smith: The food changes were sort of driven by events not quite within their control, and the blood policy, the CBD stuff were things in the works for some number of years now. So FDA is busy, and these are different divisions operating under it. I think the CBD stuff is drawing a lot of frustration because FDA had been working on considering how to regulate this aspect of hemp for a while now. And instead of coming up with a policy and taking action, they’ve rewound the circle; we’re back to square one and putting it on Congress’ issues. So that’s like one area where there’s a lot of frustration versus, I think, people are generally happier that the blood donation process was finally gone through and changed.

Rovner: Yes, the wheels of the federal regulatory process move slowly, as we know. All right. Finally this week, drug prices. Humira — which is a biological that treats rheumatoid arthritis and many other serious ailments, and for which you have undoubtedly seen TV commercials if you have ever turned on your television, because it’s the top-selling pharmaceutical in the world — is reaching the end of its patent life. That will soon provide the first real test of where the Affordable Care Act’s pathway to allow biosimilar competitors — effectively biologics version of generic drugs — whether that will actually bring down prices. Because there’s a chance here that there’s going to be a bunch of competitors to Humira and the price isn’t going to come down, right?

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I mean, that’s a major concern for a number of reasons that get us back to the broader U.S. drug pricing debate and — including the role of pharmacy benefit managers in figuring out how people get coverage of their drugs. So Humira is one of the first biologics to lose patent protection, where patients actually fill the prescriptions themselves and give themselves the medicine, which is a very different payment system than if you’re getting a biologic medicine at a doctor’s office or a hospital. And so the way that most of the insurers are covering the drug for this year, they’re actually going to charge patients the same out-of-pocket cost in most instances, as if you’ve got the brand drug or the biosimilar. And because, unlike traditional generic medicines, a lot of these, at least initially, they’re not what is called auto-substitutable. So if your doctor writes you Humira, the pharmacist doesn’t automatically give you that generic. So you’d actually have to request a new prescription from your doctor, and they’d have to write it. And if you’re not going to pay less, why are you motivated to do that?

Rovner: When you’re not even positive how much whether the drug works the same way, whether the biosimilar works the same way.

Karlin-Smith: Right. And they think people are a little bit more hesitant. They don’t understand how biosimilars work compared to generic drugs, where it took — again, when the generic drug industry first started, it took people a while to get comfortable. So there are those issues. So, basically, what has happened is AbbVie has given insurance plans and payers’ discounts on their brand drug to keep it in a good place on their formularies. So there will be savings to the broader health system, for sure. The problem is if that doesn’t get passed on to the patients, and AbbVie can continue their market monopoly, my worry is, down the line, what happens to this biosimilar industry overall? Humira is not the only top-selling, big-selling biologic medicine where we want to bring down the cost. So if these biosimilar competitors don’t eventually gain market share and make money off of doing this, why are they going to go back and develop a biosimilar and try and lower the cost of the next big drug? And that’s what people are watching. I think there’s cautious optimism that, as more biosimilars for Humira launch, there will be some pressure for insurance companies to cut deals and lower prices and not just rely on making money off high rebates. But we don’t really know how it’s going to play out. And AbbVie was pretty creative over the years. In some ways that helped patients and others questionable — how much of … like, you know, there’s high concentration of the drug, low concentration. There is citrate-free, non-citrate-free. And that means that not all the competitors are going to be exactly the same in a way that creates as much competition as it seems at first. So yeah, it’s going to be messy.

Rovner: This is the famous evergreening that we saw with drugs. I mean, where they would change something small and get a whole new patent life.

Karlin-Smith: Right. So usually with generic research, you need three direct competitors to help bring the price down a lot. But in the case of Humira, while there’s going to be, probably at least six competitors this summer, maybe more, they’re not all direct competitors for the same version of Humira. So it sort of bifurcates the space a bit more and makes it harder to, you know, figure out the economics of all of that.

Rovner: Well, if you thought that drug pricing was confusing, now we’re adding a whole new level to it. So, I’m sure we will be talking about this more as we go forward. OK. That’s the news for this week. Now, we will play my interview with Kate Baicker of the University of Chicago. Then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am excited to welcome to the podcast Katherine Baicker, currently the dean of the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy and soon to be provost of the university. Congratulations.

Katherine Baicker: Thank you so much.

Rovner: So, Kate is a health economist who is well known to health policy students for a lot of things, but most notably as the co-lead author of the Oregon Medicaid health experiment, which was able to follow a randomized population of people who got Medicaid coverage and a population that didn’t to help determine the actual impact of having Medicaid health insurance. Today, she’s here as lead author of a paper with a new way to possibly provide health coverage to all Americans. Kate, thank you so much for joining us.

Baicker: It’s a pleasure.

Rovner: So your new paper is called “Achieving Universal Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: Addressing Market Failures or Providing a Social Safety Net.” And in that single sentence, you’ve pretty much summed up the entire health insurance debate for, like, the last half-century. For those who don’t know, why is it that the U.S. doesn’t have universal insurance when literally all of our economic competitors do?

Baicker: Well, like so many things about our health care system, it goes back to the history of how it evolved, as well as some things that are different about the U.S. from other countries. If you look at how big the U.S. is geographically, how diverse our country is, how heterogeneous the health needs are. A lot of the solutions you see in other countries might not work so well in the U.S.

Rovner: So … and we’ve basically just not ever gotten over the hump here.

Baicker: Well, I also think we haven’t been asking the right questions necessarily. There is a real debate about whether health care is a “right” or not. And, of course, your listeners can’t see my “air quotes,” but I put that in air quotes because I think that’s the wrong question. Health care is not just one thing. Health care is a continuum of things. And if we just boil it down to should people have access to care or not, that doesn’t let us engage with the hard question of how much care we want to provide to everyone and how we’re going to pay for it.

Rovner: So I know a lot of people assume that the Affordable Care Act would — I’ll use my air quotes — “fix” the U.S. health insurance problem. And it has gone a long way to cover a lot of previously uninsured people. But who are the rest of the uninsured and why don’t they have coverage? It’s not necessarily who you think, right?

Baicker: That’s right. And, you know, the ACA, or Obamacare, actually made a lot of headway in covering big swaths of the uninsured population. There was a lot of discussion about health insurance exchanges, but actually more people were covered by Medicaid expansions than by health insurance exchanges. But both of those, as well as letting young people up to age 26 get on their parents’ policies. All of this chipped away at the ranks of the uninsured, but it left, for example, undocumented immigrants uninsured and also the vast majority of the uninsured people in the U.S. are already eligible for either a public program or heavily subsidized private insurance. And we have a problem of takeup and availability, not just affordability.

Rovner: So let’s get to your proposal. It’s not really that different from things that either we’ve tried in some parts of our health insurance ecosystem or what other countries do. What would it actually look like if we were to do it?

Baicker: Well, if you go back to what I think is the right question of how much health care do we want to make sure that everyone has access to and how are we going to get them enrolled in those programs? I think one key feature is having that coverage be as low-hassle as possible, automatic if possible, because we know that nonfinancial barriers to insurance are responsible for a lot of the uninsured population we still see today.

Rovner: We’ve seen that with pension plans, right? That automatically enrolling people get more people to actually put money away?

Baicker: That’s right. That’s one of the takeaways from behavioral economics is that defaults matter. Meaning what the baseline is and letting you opt in and out makes a big difference because people tend to stick with where they are. There’s a lot of inertia in saving for retirement, in enrolling in health insurance, in lots of different things. And being sophisticated in how we design the mechanics of those programs is important, as well as making sure that they’re financially affordable to people. So one step is making sure that whatever is available to people is as easy as possible for them to take advantage of. But the other is having a much harder discussion about what we want that basic package to be. And when you say “I want everybody to have all of the care that might possibly be available, no matter what price and no matter how much it impacts their health,” that’s more than 100% of GDP. We just can’t do that and still have any money for anything like food and housing and education and roads and all of the things that we also care about. So if we had that tough discussion as a nation, as a body politic, to say, here is the care that we think is really high-value that we think is a right for everyone and that we want to make sure is available to everyone, then people could be automatically enrolled in that default package and have the option to get more care that is more expensive and maybe a little less effective, but still worth it to them that they purchase on their own. And that opens up a whole host of other questions and ethical dilemmas that I’m sure you’re going to want to ask about.

Rovner: But it also — as a lot of people are concerned, that something like “Medicare for All” would eliminate the incentive to innovate new kinds of care. I mean, obviously, there’s this race to figure out, you know, a drug to treat Alzheimer’s and that if the federal government were to basically set prices for everything, that there would be no more innovation incentive. You actually address that here, right?

Baicker: Yes. And I’m so glad you raised that concern, because there are many challenges to having a monolithic one-size-fits-all Medicare for All type plan. One of them is, you know, affordability for the system and accessibility. But another is the dulled incentive for innovation and the dulled drive towards having new medicines and new treatments available. Medicare is very slow to innovate. It took 40-plus years for Medicare to include prescription drugs at all. And that was because when Medicare was formed in the Sixties, prescription medicine wasn’t a very important part of health care. It wasn’t a very expensive part of health care, there just weren’t that many drugs to treat people. Well, now those medicines are crucial to health and well-being. And Medicare finally added a prescription drug benefit in 2005. But that was a long lag, and that’s just one example. So I think having some fundamental access to care that we know is of high value for everyone could be coupled with having the option to purchase more generous insurance that covers more things. And that private insurance layered on top would really provide the financial incentives for continued innovation. It acknowledges the reality that in a world of scarce resources, higher-income people are going to have more health care than lower-income people. And that is an ugly reality and one that we ought to grapple with ethically, and as a matter of public policy priorities. I would argue we’re already rationing care. It is not possible for public programs to pay for all care for all people, no matter what the price, no matter what the health benefit, and being intentional about defining what it is we’re going to cover with public dollars and then letting people buy more care with private dollars is a way perhaps to make a financially sustainable system that also promotes innovation.

Rovner: And this isn’t really new. I mean, lots of other countries do this. I was in Switzerland a decade ago, and I remember that they … their extra-benefit package includes things like single rooms in hospitals and homeopathic medicine and things that I’m not sure we would end up putting into our top-up plans, but it’s something that’s important to them.

Baicker: Yes. And when people point to our European counterparts and say, look, they all have single-payer. In fact, a lot of them have a hybrid system like the one that we’re describing. And it’s important to differentiate: We’re talking about a basic plan that’s available for everyone. That doesn’t mean that it only covers cheap things. It should only cover high-value things. But some cheap things are incredibly ineffective and low-value, and some expensive things are really important for health and very high-value. So it’s about the value of the dollar spent in terms of producing health, not whether it’s expensive or cheap. And so when you think about having a top-up plan, it shouldn’t be about billing cost sharing that, you know, lower-income people are exposed to in the basic plan. It should be about adding services that are of less health importance but still valuable to the people purchasing them.

Rovner: Obviously, the biggest issue here is going to be who’s going to make that determination? I’m old enough to remember fights over the ACA, death panels, and the independent Medicare advisory board that never happened. In fact, there were a lot of these, you know, we’re going to appoint experts. And it never happened because none of the experts ever wanted to be on these panels. How do you overcome that hurdle of actually grappling with the decision of what should be covered?

Baicker: Yes, the devil is always in the details for these things, and you put your finger on a really important one where we haven’t provided a robust answer, and our analysis is meant to highlight the importance of making these hard decisions and the value of this framework. But we don’t have a magic bullet for this. I would argue that having Congress make this decision every year is a recipe for lobbying and decision-making that doesn’t actually line up with value. There’s an opportunity perhaps to have a panel of experts who, as you note, is just a hop, skip and a jump from being called a “death panel.” But I think we can rely on some clinical guidelines as guardrails on this. And we do have some examples of experimentation in this direction in the U.S. In fact, more than experimentation — if you look at Medicare Advantage, this used to be a small part of the Medicare program. These are private plans for Medicare beneficiaries that are now, I think, pretty soon going to be the majority of plans that people have. And it’s a mechanism for people to choose among plans that have some things that have to be covered, but can then add additional benefits for enrollees, and it can be a little more tailored to what people value in their plans. So I don’t think that’s the answer either. But it’s a proof of concept that we can do something like this in the U.S.

Rovner: So in some ways this would bridge the gap between Republican marketplace ideas and Democratic Medicare for All ideas. But it feels like, since the fight over the Affordable Care Act, Republicans have moved more to the right on health care and Democrats have moved more to the left on health care. You are no stranger to partisan politics nor the ways of Washington, D.C. How could everybody be brought back to what I daresay looks like a political compromise?

Baicker: Well, I’m an economist, as you noted, and that’s notoriously bad at understanding actual human beings. I don’t have any idea for the path forward through the political thicket that we’re in. In some ways, it is a little disheartening to see how difficult it is to do some basic commonsense things. In any complicated system like the U.S. health care system, there are always small technical fixes that need to be made that are just commonsense, that ought not to be political. And it’s hard to do those.

Rovner: We’re lacking in common sense right now in Washington.

Baicker: Yeah. So I can’t say that I’m hugely optimistic about a big change happening right away. On the other hand, I think covid really highlighted to people across the political spectrum how important it is to have continuity of coverage, how disparate our current system is in terms of access to care, how problematic it is to have your main avenue of health insurance be through your employer when a pandemic is coupled with a recession. So I think the challenges and the vast inequities of our health care system were laid bare during covid. So it is perhaps salient enough that people might be willing to consider alternative structures. But I can’t say I’m holding my breath.

Rovner: Well, Kate Baicker, thank you very much for, if anything, a great thought experiment. It’s really wonderful to look your way through … it’s like, oh, we could get there, maybe in another half a century.

Baicker: I hope sooner than that.

Rovner: I do, too. Thank you so much.

Baicker: My pleasure.

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

Cohrs: My extra credit is headlined “UnitedHealthcare Tried to Deny Coverage to a Chronically Ill Patient. He Fought Back, Exposing the Insurer’s Inner Workings,” in ProPublica by David Armstrong, Patrick Rucker, and Maya Miller. And I thought this story was just such a good illustration of the jargon that we use in D.C., of, like, utilization management and prior authorization. And sometimes these terms just feel so impersonal. But I feel like this story did such a good job walking through one patient’s struggle to find something that worked and then just the arbitrary choices that insurers were making, looking at their bottom line to try to prevent him from getting a very expensive treatment that actually did increase his quality of life significantly. So I would definitely recommend, as we’re thinking about insurers’ role in this whole health care cost debate as well.

Rovner: Yeah, it does bring home how the patient is always in the middle of this. Alice.

Ollstein: I chose a piece by my colleague Carmen Paun called “Mpox Is Simmering South of the Border, Threatening a Resurgence,” and it’s about how the U.S. was extremely successful in vaccinating high-risk people against mpox, which for folks who still remember the artist formerly known as monkeypox, the name was changed to reduce stigma and be more accurate. The U.S. vaccination campaign and messaging campaign to the most high-risk populations was really successful and did the trick. But as we learned from covid and every other infectious disease, if you don’t take care of other parts of the world, it could eventually come back. We’re not an island, and even islands aren’t safe. But, you know, this is about a bunch of countries, including Mexico, that really have made no mass vaccination effort at all. You know, some civil society groups are trying on their own, but they just don’t have official government backing. And that’s really dangerous. And it meant that cases are surging in parts of Latin America and parts of Africa. And as we saw from covid, that leads to the development of new variants and things traveling back to the U.S. and other places around the world. So, certainly, something to pay attention to.

Rovner: Public health is important. World public health is important. Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: I looked at a piece called “Decisions by CVS and Optum Panicked Thousands of Their Sickest Patients,” by Arthur Allen for Kaiser Health News. It’s a deep dive into CVS and Optum moving out of, to some degree, business places where they provide home infusion services of perinatal nutrition to people that essentially cannot eat or drink in most cases. And they basically decided that it’s not a great business opportunity for them in many cases. But these are people that really depend on these services to live and survive, and they’re very complex medicines and essential nutrition to get and deliver. And at the same time, I think what really fascinated me about this story is it talks about this dynamic of while companies are getting out of the space where you’re providing this service to people that need these IV treatments to survive and live, there also has been development of these medical spas, as they’re called, where people that actually do not need IV hydration or IV nutrition are essentially being given it for nonmedical purposes. And there’s a lot of money being made there. And it just shows you how some of the profit incentives in our system don’t necessarily align with treating the people that actually need the health care first.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s like the people with diabetes not being able to get their drugs because people in Hollywood want to lose 10 pounds fast. But this obviously is, you know, another life-or-death issue. Well, I chose an op-ed this week in The New York Times by the University of Texas law professor Steven I. Vladeck called “Don’t Let Republican ‘Judge Shoppers’ Thwart the Will of Voters.” And it answered a lot of questions for me. First, how is it that so many suits end up in front of the same judges who the plaintiffs know are likely to rule in their favor, and all in Texas? So it turns out that Texas has distributed its federal judges in a way that in nine districts there is only one judge. And in 10 more, there are only two judges. Obviously, there’s no random draw in those districts where there’s only one judge. That’s what you’re going to get. So we keep seeing some of the same Texas judges, first Judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth, and now Matthew Kacsmaryk, a former advocate for a conservative think tank and the only federal judge in Amarillo. Judge O’Connor had the big ACA case, now has a big preventive care case. Judge Kacsmaryk has the abortion pill case that we’ve been talking about. It’s a really interesting piece about how that could really twist justice. But it also includes several ways to fix it. We’ll have to see if any of them actually get taken up.

OK. That is our show for this week. 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. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth — all one word — @kff.org. Or you can tweet me as long as Twitter is still up. I’m @jrovner. Alice?

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein

Rovner: Rachel

Cohrs: @rachelcohrs

Rovner: Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: @SarahKarlin

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.

The public health emergency in effect since the start of the covid-19 pandemic will end on May 11, the Biden administration announced this week. The end of the so-called PHE will bring about a raft of policy changes affecting patients, health care providers, and states. But Republicans in Congress, along with some Democrats, have been agitating for an end to the “emergency” designation for months.

Meanwhile, despite Republicans’ less-than-stellar showing in the 2022 midterm elections and broad public support for preserving abortion access, anti-abortion groups are pushing for even stronger restrictions on the procedure, arguing that Republicans did poorly because they were not strident enough on abortion issues.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Victoria Knight of Axios, Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post, and Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Panelists

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories

Rachel Roubein
The Washington Post

@rachel_roubein

Read Rachel's stories

Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times

@sangerkatz

Read Margot's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• This week the Biden administration announced the covid public health emergency will end in May, terminating many flexibilities the government afforded health care providers during the pandemic to ease the challenges of caring for patients.
• Some of the biggest covid-era changes, like the expansion of telehealth and Medicare coverage for the antiviral medication Paxlovid, have already been extended by Congress. Lawmakers have also set a separate timetable for the end of the Medicaid coverage requirement. Meanwhile, the White House is pushing back on reports that the end of the public health emergency will also mean the end of free vaccines, testing, and treatments.
• A new KFF poll shows widespread public confusion over medication abortion, with many respondents saying they are unsure whether the abortion pill is legal in their state and how to access it. Advocates say medication abortion, which accounts for about half of abortions nationwide, is the procedure’s future, and state laws regarding its use are changing often.
• On abortion politics, the Republican National Committee passed a resolution urging candidates to “go on the offense” in 2024 and push stricter abortion laws. Abortion opponents were unhappy that Republican congressional leaders did not push through a federal gestational limit on abortion last year, and the party is signaling a desire to appeal to its conservative base in the presidential election year.
• This week, the federal government announced it will audit Medicare Advantage plans for overbilling. But according to a KHN scoop, the government will limit its clawbacks to recent years, allowing many plans to keep the money it overpaid them. Medicare Advantage is poised to enroll the majority of seniors this year.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Hannah Wesolowski of the National Alliance on Mental Illness about how the rollout of the new 988 suicide prevention hotline is going.

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

Julie Rovner: Axios’ “Republicans Break With Another Historical Ally: Doctors,” by Caitlin Owens and Victoria Knight

Margot Sanger-Katz: The New York Times’ “Most Abortion Bans Include Exceptions. In Practice, Few Are Granted,” by Amy Schoenfeld Walker

Rachel Roubein: The Washington Post’s “I Wrote About High-Priced Drugs for Years. Then My Toddler Needed One,” by Carolyn Y. Johnson

Victoria Knight: The New York Times’ “Emailing Your Doctor May Carry a Fee,” by Benjamin Ryan

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• KFF’s “KFF Health Tracking Poll: Early 2023 Update on Public Awareness on Abortion and Emergency Contraception,” by Grace Sparks, Shannon Schumacher, Marley Presiado, Ashley Kirzinger, and Mollyann Brodie
• USA Today’s “Biden Seeks to Bolster the Affordable Care Act’s No-Cost Contraception Rule,” by Ken Alltucker
• The National Review’s “To Reduce Abortions, Should Giving Birth Be Free?” by Wesley J. Smith
• The New York Times’ “New Medicare Rule Aims to Take Back $4.7 Billion From Insurers,” by Reed Abelson and Margot Sanger-Katz
• KHN’s “Government Lets Health Plans That Ripped Off Medicare Keep the Money,” by Fred Schulte

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Au Revoir, Public Health Emergency

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Au Revoir, Public Health EmergencyEpisode Number: 283Published: Feb. 2, 2023

Tamar Haspel: A lot of us want to eat better for the planet, but we’re not always sure how to do it. I’m Tamar Haspel.

Michael Grunwald: And I’m Michael Grunwald. And this is “Climavores,” a show about eating on a changing planet.

Haspel: We’re here to answer all kinds of questions. Questions like: Is fake meat really a good alternative to beef? Does local food actually matter?

Grunwald: You can follow us or subscribe on Stitcher, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.

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, Feb. 2, 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 Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Margot Sanger-Katz: Good morning, everybody.

Rovner: Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Rachel Roubein: Hi, good morning.

Rovner: And Victoria Knight of Axios.

Victoria Knight: Hi! Good morning.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll play my interview with Hannah Wesolowski of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. She’s going to update us on the rollout of 988, the new national suicide prevention hotline. And because it’s February, we’re asking for your best health policy valentines. You can write a poem or haiku and tweet it, tagging @KHNews, and use the hashtag #healthpolicyvalentines, all one word. We’ll choose some of our favorites for that week’s podcast and the winner will be featured on Valentine’s Day on khn.org with its own illustration. But first, this week’s news. So we’re going to start with covid, which we actually haven’t talked about very much for a couple of weeks. But this week there’s some real actual news, which is that President [Joe] Biden has announced he will be ending the public health emergency, as well as the national covid emergency, which is a different thing, on May 11. Depending on who you believe, the president’s hand was forced by the Republican House this week voting on a bunch of bills that would immediately end the emergencies — or that May had always been the administration’s plan. I’m guessing it’s probably a bit of both. But let’s start with what’s going to happen in May, because it’s a bit confusing. We’ve talked at some length over the months about the Medicaid “unwinding.” So let’s start with that. How is that going to roll out, as we will?

Sanger-Katz: So that is actually not going to be affected at all by this change. When Congress passed the CARES Act, it tied a lot of these pandemic programs to the public health emergency. And I think what Congress has been doing in recent months is trying to untie some of those policies from the public health emergency, because I think it has identified that some of them are worth keeping and some of them are worth eliminating, and that it ought to make up its own mind about the right timeline and process for that — instead of just leaving it in the hands of the president to end the public health emergency when he sees fit. So what happened in the omnibus legislation, the big spending bill that passed at the end of the year, is that Congress said, OK, there has been this provision in the CARES Act that said that states need to keep everyone who is enrolled in Medicaid continuously enrolled in Medicaid until the end of the public health emergency, or they risk losing this extra Medicaid funding that they have been getting — and that, I think, has been beneficial to state budgets. And what Congress did is they said, OK, we’re going to create a date certain, starting in April, [that] this policy is going to go away, but we’re going to do it sort of incrementally. So the money’s not going to go away all at once. It’s going to go away in a couple of stages to make it a little easier on states. And they also created a lot of procedures and what they call guardrails to prevent states from just dumping everyone out of Medicaid all at once. So they’re requiring them to do various things to make sure they have the right address and that they’ve contacted people in Medicaid. They will punish them. There’s new penalties that the secretary can use to punish them if it seems like they’re doing things too arbitrarily, and there are other provisions. So as a result, the public health emergency doesn’t have any effect on this. But this policy and Medicaid is going to start unwinding right around the same time. In April and May we’re going to start seeing states probably phasing down their enrollment of some Medicaid beneficiaries as this extra funding that is tied to that goes away.

Rovner: And just a reminder, I mean, there’s now more than close to 90 million people on Medicaid, many of whom are probably no longer still eligible. So the concern is that states are going to have to basically reevaluate the eligibility of all of those people to see who’s still eligible and who’s not and who may be eligible for other government programs. And it’s just going to be a very long process. And I know health advocates are really worried about people falling through the cracks and losing their health insurance entirely.

Sanger-Katz: I think it’s still a huge risk and there still are a lot of people who are likely to lose their insurance as a result of this transition. But it was a weird situation that we were in, where you kind of went from all or nothing, just by the president deciding that the public health emergency was over. And I do understand why Congress decided, OK, look, why don’t we take some leadership over how this policy is going to phase down instead of just leaving it as this looming cliff that we don’t know exactly when it will come and where we don’t have control over the procedure for it.

Rovner: And Margot, you also mentioned things that Congress thought they might want to keep. And I guess a big one of those is telehealth, right? Because that was also in the end-of-year omnibus bill.

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, that’s proved to be really popular, because of the pandemic, because it was dangerous for people to get into doctors’ offices and hospitals early in the pandemic. Medicare loosened some rules and then Congress kind of cemented that. That allowed people to get doctors’ visits using video conferencing, telephone, other kinds of remote technologies, and Medicare paid for that. And that’s been super popular. It has a lot of bipartisan support. And now Congress has extended that benefit for longer. So I think we’re going to see telehealth become a more permanent part of how Medicare benefits are delivered.

Rovner: But not permanent yet. I think there’s still some concern that if it …

Sanger-Katz: Just for two years right now.

Rovner: Well, if it gets too popular, it could get really expensive. I think there’s a worry about …

Sanger-Katz: I do think that the two years will create some infrastructure — I think even just the temporary provision. A lot of doctors and hospitals … I was talking to folks that worked in medicine, they just weren’t set up for it at all. And they had to figure out, how are we going to do it? How are we going to build for it? What systems are we going to use? How are we going to make it secure? So some of that has already happened. But I also think two years is a long-enough runway that you start to imagine that there will be more start-ups, more health care providers that are really orienting their practice around this method of delivering care because they have some sense of permanence now.

Rovner: And I can’t imagine that this won’t become one of those, quote-unquote, “extenders” that Congress renews whenever it expires, which they do now. Rachel, you wanted to say something?

Roubein: Oh, yeah. To your point, I just think once there’s infrastructure built, it’s really hard to take things away. But I guess while we’re on the train of things that aren’t impacting, Congress also in their big government spending bill made a change to Paxlovid, allowing Medicare to continue to cover it under emergency use authorization. So that also won’t be impacted by an end to the public health emergency.

Rovner: So what are the things that will be impacted by the end of the public health emergency?

Knight: Really the biggest thing — and my colleague Maya [Goldman] has been pioneering at writing about this — is that it’s really CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services gave providers a lot of flexibilities that were tied to the PHE [public health emergency]. So it’s a bunch of different small things. It’s, like, reporting requirements, physical environment standards, even things like where radiologists can read X-rays. It’s small stuff like that that a lot of providers have kind of gotten used to and relied on during covid. And so those may go away. It’s possible also that HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] could allow some of those to remain in place. When I talked to congressman Brett Guthrie, who is the one who introduced the bill to end the PHE, he said he wants to talk to HHS and figure out what are some things that he knows providers enjoy on these flexibilities. There was something about nurses’ training that he wants to keep in place. So they’re making it sound like it’s the end of the world end to this. I’m not sure that that’s actually true.

Rovner: Yeah, and I know the administration’s been pushing back on some of the stories that said that this will be an end to free vaccines and the actual covid testing. But that’s not even really true, right?

Roubein: I think one of my colleagues had talked a little bit about this to Jen Kates from the Kaiser Family Foundation, and that was a concern of hers. So I think some of it is dependent on what policies … and see what the next few months …

Rovner: My impression is that federal government has purchased all of these things. So it’s not … so much the end of the public health emergency. It’s when they run out of supply that they have now. So it’s not so much linked to a date. It’s linked to the supply, because I guess at the end of the public health emergency, they won’t be buying anymore. If nobody wants to answer this question, please don’t. But I’m confused about how this all affects the controversial Title 42, which is a public health requirement that was put in by the Trump administration that limited how many people could come across the border because of covid. I’m still confused about who’s for ending it and who’s not for ending it, and whether ending the emergency ends it or whether it’s in court. And if nobody knows, that’s fine because it’s not totally a health issue. But if anybody does, I’m dying to know.

Sanger-Katz: So my understanding on this one — which I also want to say I’m not like 1,000% sure, but this is what I’ve been told — is that it is related to public health authority and assessment that there is a health emergency, but that it is not part of that CARES framework where … when the public health emergency ends, it ends. It is a separate declaration by the CDC [and Health and Human Services] secretary. And so what I have been told is that it is not directly linked to this, but obviously it is the policy of the Biden administration that we are no longer experiencing a public health emergency. Then I do think the continued use of that policy starts to come under question because the justification for it is quite similar, even if the mechanism is different.

Knight: And I have to tell you, Julie, some of my immigration reporter friends on the Hill were also confused. I think everyone was a little confused because the Biden administration was saying this will lift Title 42 immediately, and Republicans were saying, no, it doesn’t. Brett Guthrie literally came to me and was like, “It is not ending yet.” So I think …

Rovner: I’m not the only one confused?

Knight: Yeah, you’re not the only one confused. And people were calling lawyers, being like, what does this mean when that was going on this week? So, yeah.

Roubein: I think it’s going to be a continuation of this big political fight that we’ve seen over Title 42. An administration official argued to my White House colleague Tyler Pager that essentially because Title 42 is a public health order, the CDC is determining that [there] would no longer be a need for the measure once the coronavirus no longer presents a public health emergency. So we’ll see wrangling over this.

Rovner: Yes, this will go on.

Sanger-Katz: I mean, it’s the same administration, you would think that they would be making a similar judgment about these different things. But the politics around this immigration policy are quite fraught. And it’s possible that they will be de-linked in some way. We’ll see.

Rovner: We will see.

Roubein: And the fight over this held up millions of dollars of covid aid last year. So it’s just been really political.

Rovner: That’s right. Well, moving along and speaking of the Republican-led House, they have, shall we say, refocused the special committee on covid that was set up in the last Congress. Rather than looking at how the nation flubbed preparedness in the early response to the pandemic. The Republican panel is now expected to concentrate on complaining about mask and vaccine mandates, trying to figure out the virus’s origins, and, at least so they’ve said, roasting scientists and public health leaders like the now-retired Anthony Fauci. Among the new Republican members appointed to the panel are the outspoken Marjorie Taylor Greene and former Trump White House doctor, now congressman, Ronny Jackson of Texas. I imagine, if nothing else, these hearings will be very lively to watch, right?

Knight: They definitely are going to be lively to watch. We did just find out yesterday that congressman Raul Ruiz is going to be the Democratic ranking member [of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic]. He’s also a doctor. Congressman Brad Wenstrup [R-Ohio] is the chairman of the committee. He’s also a doctor. So it is not only some members who have pushed forward misinformation about covid; there are also members that agree with vaccines and things like that. So I think it’ll be interesting to see how they play this out. I’ve been talking to a lot of them on what they’re going to focus on the committee, what the goal is. So it may not be as wild as we’re anticipating. There may be some members that want it to be, but I think that they want to look at covid origins for sure and the Biden administration’s rollout of vaccines and mandates and things like that. But there’s also Democrats on the committee. So we’ll see how it goes.

Rovner: I will point out, though, when you point out how many doctors are there that Andy Harris of Maryland, who’s also a doctor, a Johns Hopkins anesthesiologist, came under fire for prescribing ivermectin. So we’ve got doctors and we’ve got doctors in the House.

Knight: But I listened to the covid origins hearing yesterday — they did the first one, the Energy and Commerce [ Committee], and I covered it — and I was expecting it to be, like, very intense. And it actually was pretty measured and nothing too wild happened, so …

Rovner: But we shall see. All right. Well, let’s move on to abortion. This is where I get to say that if you didn’t listen to last week’s two-parter on the state of the abortion debate and you’re at all interested in this subject, you should definitely go back and do that. But, obviously, I wish more people would listen to it because a new poll this week from my colleagues over the firewall at KFF finds that a large portion of the public is still confused over whether medication abortion is legal in their state, about whether it requires a prescription (it does), and about how it works compared to emergency contraception. The first one can terminate an early pregnancy. The second one can only prevent pregnancy. Given how fast things are changing in various states, I suppose this confusion is predictable. But is there any way to make this even a little bit clearer? I mean, we have a public that honestly is getting ready to throw its hands up because they can’t figure out what’s what.

Sanger-Katz: I think there’s a good role for journalism here. The abortion pill is a very mature technology. It’s been around for a very long time. It’s become the means for more than half of abortions in America. But I still think, you know, a lot of people don’t know about it. I think when they think about abortion, a lot of Americans are thinking about a surgical procedure that happens in a clinic. Advocates on both sides of the abortion debate are very clear that medication abortion is likely the future of abortion for a lot of Americans because it is easily transportable, because it is able to be prescribed through telemedicine, because it is less expensive than clinic abortion. But I do think just a lot of Americans just don’t have a lot of familiarity with this. And so I think we just have to keep telling them about it, explaining how it works, what the safety profile of it is, how you can get it, what the laws are around it. And, you know, this is a bit of a shifting ground beneath our feet because states are actively regulating and restricting this technology. And I have a team of colleagues at The New York Times in the graphics department who are amazing, who are just like every day updating a page on our website about what is the state of laws surrounding abortion in this country? And it’s really remarkable how often the laws, particularly about abortion pills, are changing. You know, several times a week they are updating that page. So I think all of us just have to keep educating the public about this.

Rovner: And my required reminder that the “morning-after pill” is not the same as the abortion pill. The morning-after pill is now available over the counter. And we now know — thank you, FDA, for changing the label — that it cannot actually interrupt an existing pregnancy. It can only prevent pregnancy. So that’s my little PSA. Meanwhile, we have talked a lot about how anti-abortion forces are pushing harder than ever for a national abortion ban. The Republican National Committee passed a resolution last week, pushed by some of the more strident anti-abortion groups, calling for Republicans to, quote, “go on the offense” in 2024 to work for the most restrictive abortion laws possible. Given that polling still shows a majority of Americans and even a majority of swing voters still think abortion should be legal, are the Republicans driving themselves politically off a cliff here, or do they really think that revving up their base will help them win elections?

Roubein: I think that this is notable from the RNC because, as you mentioned, anti-abortion advocates were really, really mad at people like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, other Republicans who were saying that it was a state issue and had been pushing for them to paint Democrats as extreme, pushing a very different message. So this is ahead of 2024. Obviously, anti-abortion advocates are, when they’re looking at who they’re going to endorse in the presidential race, are going to be looking for candidates that support some kind of federal gestational limit on abortion.

Knight: I know Alice [Miranda Ollstein], who has been on here a lot, she was reporting that these anti-abortion groups are also pushing Republicans to put bills on the House floor to vote on restricting abortion. So there’s a six-week bill that’s already been introduced, maybe some other weeks. And so I think depending on if they actually do floor votes on this, that’s going to be something Democrats will use to attack them, I’m sure, in the upcoming election and maybe also something Republicans want to promote. So I think that it’s definitely notable, and we’re going to have to see if it’s the same as it was in the midterms when it didn’t seem to be a winning message for Republicans. But the anti-abortion groups are saying double down more. So we’ll see.

Rovner: Well, speaking of anti-abortion groups, they’ve been quietly pushing something new: a campaign to, as they call it, quote, “make birth free.” The idea is that a pregnant woman shouldn’t be swayed to have an abortion because she thinks she can’t afford to give birth. It’s been quite a few years since the anti-abortion side tried to advocate for benefits for pregnant women. I remember in the mid-1980s, congressman Henry Hyde — yes, he of the Hyde Amendment — joined with one of the most liberal members of the House, former California Democrat Henry Waxman, to sponsor a bill to reduce infant mortality. It turned out to be the beginning of Medicaid’s benefit for pregnant women, for prenatal delivery and postnatal care, something that’s now extremely popular. Do we expect to see more for this, more of this, or for this to catch on? … I’ve seen the group asking for this. I haven’t really seen any lawmakers suggesting this. It would be pretty expensive to basically pay for every birth in the country. We have a lot of shaking heads.

Knight: I had not heard any lawmakers talking about that. I don’t know if others have. I know there has been some push from some Republicans to put more safeguards in place for women who give birth, like just more supportive programs, but like, I haven’t heard like making birth completely free. And I know also that’s not maybe a widely held view within — I know there are some Republicans pushing for it. There’s a really good Washington Post article about this recently, about paid leave also. But they seem to be in the minority. And so there’s not enough movement to, like, make the party actually do anything on that.

Roubein: I think it’s sort of the beginning. Like Americans United for Life, a big anti-abortion group that’s written a lot, a lot of model laws that states have adopted. They had released a white paper about this. I think that’s sort of the beginning of the push and that’s what we tend to see with the anti-abortion movement is, you know, sometimes we see these policies come out from different groups and then they advocate and then potentially it goes to legislation and they try and find different lawmakers’ ears. So I think it’s a little bit TBD at this point.

Sanger-Katz: I also think it highlights how there’s a growing movement in the Republican Party — and I would say this is not a majority of Republicans yet — but we do see a significant minority that really are pursuing these pro-family policies, policies that we often think about as being pursued by Democrats. Family leave is an example of that, interest in day care, the child tax credit. There are a number of Republicans that were really champions of that policy in the last few years. And I think this feels like it’s a piece with that, that a lot of Republicans, they want to encourage people to have families, to have children, to be able to care for their children. And they understand that it’s hard and it’s expensive. But I do think that those ideas tend to bump up against the more libertarian elements in the Republican Party that are opposed to a lot of government spending, a lot of government intervention in people’s family lives and just concerned about the deficit and debt as well. And so this continues to be an interesting development. My colleague Claire Cain Miller at The Upshot has written a lot about this debate within the Republican Party as it relates to some of these other policies. And I wonder if this idea of making birth free could start to become part of that package of policies that you see some Republicans really interested in, even though you might think of the issue as being something that is more classically a Democratic issue.

Rovner: Although I’m wondering if the Democrats are going to pick up on this and try to hold the Republicans’ feet to the fire on it. It’s like, see, your base would like to make this free. Don’t you want to join them? I could see that happening although hard to know. All right. Well, finally this week on the reproductive health agenda, the Biden administration undid another Trump regulation, this one to eliminate employers with, quote-unquote, “moral objections to birth control” from having to offer it under the Affordable Care Act. Those with religious objections would still have a workaround to ensure that their employees get the coverage, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. Actually, only a handful of employers have used the moral exception. Actually, I think the more important part of this regulation would create a new pathway for employees of religiously objecting employers, like religious schools and colleges, to get coverage without involving the employer at all, nor making the employer pay for it. This has been a big sticking point and created a giant backlash early on in the Affordable Care Act’s rollout — and two separate Supreme Court cases — because the employers didn’t want to be seen to be facilitating people getting birth control that they didn’t believe in. Now that they’re going to totally separate this from the employer, might this put that little fight to rest? Not a little — a big fight to rest? [pause] We have no predictions?

Sanger-Katz: This feels like one of those policies that is just going to flip-flop back and forth when we have different presidents. The Trump administration, you know, went really far. This idea of a moral objection, I think doesn’t have a particularly strong basis in law or at least didn’t historically. But the Supreme Court said that they had the authority to do it. And so I think that then creates a precedent that future administrations can do it. I do think that there is a concern from the religious community that this requirement imposes too much of a moral stricture on them. And so they are always pushing for more and wider exceptions to this contraceptive coverage policy. To me, the big surprise in this is just that it took so long. The Trump administration rolled out this particular policy almost immediately upon taking office. And now we’re more than two years into the Biden administration and they have finally rolled it back.

Rovner: Yes. And I am keeping track. And I will update my little infographic about how long it’s taking the Biden administration to change some of these policies. Well, finally, this week, Medicare Advantage, as we’ve mentioned before, private Medicare plans have become very popular, particularly because they often offer extra benefits, mostly because they’re being paid extra by the federal government. But it seems some of these companies have also figured out how to game the system. Surprise. So this week, the federal government announced a crackdown by way of new audits that’s predicted to recoup nearly $5 billion. Medicare’s always … things with lots of zeros. Margot, you wrote about this this week. What are they going to do?

Sanger-Katz: So just a little bit of background. Medicare pays Medicare Advantage plans a set amount per person to take care of them. And the idea is the insurance company can try to do a better job and provide less medical care and keep people healthier and save the remainder as profits. And when Medicare Advantage started, there was this problem where the plans had this huge incentive to just pick all the healthy seniors, because if you pick all the healthy people, they don’t need a lot of medical care and then you get to keep a lot of that payment as profits. And so Congress came up with a new system where if you take care of someone who is sick, who has diabetes, who has substance abuse problems, who has COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], you get a little bonus payment so that the insurer has an incentive to cover that person. They have a little bit of extra money to take care of their health needs. And what we’ve seen over the years that the Medicare Advantage program has become mature, is that the plans have gotten extremely good at finding every single possible thing that is wrong with every single possible person that they enroll. And in some cases, they just kind of make things up that don’t seem to be justified by that person’s medical records. And so the amount that the Medicare system is paying to these plans has just gone up and up and up. And there are all kinds of estimates of how much they’ve been overpaid that are kind of eye-popping. And there are quite a lot of serious fraud lawsuits that are making their way through the federal courts. There have been some settlements, but basically every major insurer in this program is facing some kind of legal scrutiny for the way that they are diagnosing their patients to get these payments. And you know, what’s interesting to me about it is there’s been quite a lot of good journalism about this problem. Julie, your colleague Fred Schulte, I think, has been a real leader on this and had actually a big, big scoop recently. And the GAO has written about it. The HHS inspector general has done audits and written about it. There have been these lawsuits. This is not really a secret, but there has been very little action by CMS over the last decade on this problem. And I think there are a few reasons for that. One, I think it’s hard to fix. I will give them some credit. The policy levers are complicated, but I also think there is just a big political disincentive to do anything about this. Medicare Advantage has become more and more popular over the years. It is poised to enroll a majority of seniors, of Medicare beneficiaries, this year, and those people are very diffuse across the country. It’s not the case that there’s just Medicare Advantage in one or two markets where you have a couple members of Congress who care about it. They’re kind of everywhere. And they’re not just in Republican districts. Even though Republicans created this program, there are a lot of them in Democratic districts, too. And people like these plans. They have some downsides, which we could talk about another time. But they tend to have lower premiums for seniors. They tend to cover benefits like hearing, vision, and dental benefits that the traditional Medicare program does not cover. And so people really like these plans. And the more the plans are paid, the more they can afford to give all these goodies to their beneficiaries. And so I think there has been a lot of political pressure on CMS to not aggressively regulate the plans. And that’s part of why what they did this week is actually pretty striking. They did something pretty aggressive. They have been conducting these audits where they take 200 patients — which is a very, very small fraction of the total number of patients in any one plan — and they look at the diagnoses and they compare them to the medical records for those patients and they say, hey, wait a minute, I don’t think that this patient really has lung cancer. I think this patient doesn’t have that. So you shouldn’t have gotten that payment. And so that has been the system for some time where they look at a couple of records and they go back to the plans and they say, hey, pay us back this lung cancer payment. You can’t justify this based on the medical record.

Rovner: And they extrapolate from that, right? And it’s not …

Sanger-Katz: No. So what this new rule says is it says, you know, if in your 200 people that we look at, we find that you have an error rate of whatever, 5%, we are now going to ask you to pay back the money across your whole book of business, that you can’t just pay us back for the five people that we found, you have to pay back for everyone because we assume that whatever kinds of mistakes or sketchy things that you’ve done to create these errors in this small sample, probably you’ve done them to other patients, too. So that’s like the big thing that the rule does. It says “Pay back more money.” And then the other thing that it says is it says we’re going to reach back in time and you’re got to pay back all the extra money you got in 2018, in 2019, in 2020, and in 2021. So it’s not just forward-looking, but it’s also backward-looking, trying to recover some of what CMS believes are excessive payments that the plans received.

Rovner: Although, as my colleague Fred Schulte points out, they don’t go back in time as far as they could. So they’re basically leaving a fair bit of money on the table for … I guess that’s part of the balancing that they’re trying to do with being aggressive in recouping some of this money and noting that this is a very popular program that has a lot of bipartisan support.

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, it’s been interesting. The market reaction was very muted. So this suggests to me that the plans, even though it is aggressive relative to what we have seen in the past, that it was not as aggressive as what the plans and their shareholders were worried about.

Rovner: Exactly. All right. Well, that is as much time as we have for the news this week. Now, we will play my interview with Hannah Wesolowski of NAMI. Then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast Hannah Wesolowski of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. You may remember we spoke to Hannah last February in anticipation of the launch of the new three-digit national suicide hotline, 988. Hannah, welcome back.

Hannah Wesolowski: Thanks, Julie. It’s great to be here.

Rovner: So the 988 hotline officially launched last July. It’s been up and running now for just about seven months. How’s it going?

Wesolowski: Largely, it’s going great. We’re really excited to see that not only are more people reaching out for help — overall, there’s about a 30% to 40% increase, year over year, when we look at every month of the helpline — but they’re talking to people quickly. They’re getting that help. They’re getting connected to crisis counselors in their state. And that really displays the tremendous work that’s happened across the country to build up capacity in anticipation of the lifeline.

Rovner: Is there anything that surprised you about the rollout, something that was unexpected — or that you expected that didn’t happen?

Wesolowski: I had a few sleepless nights there, worried about: Would people be able to get through? What would demand look like? And would call centers have that capacity? This was a quick turnaround. Congress passed this in late 2020, and it went live in mid-2022. That’s not a lot of time in the real world to actually stand up call centers that have a 24/7 capacity to answer calls, texts, and chats. And yet, when we look at the numbers, they’re amazing. The number of texts alone has grown exponentially, when we look at people who were texting the lifeline previously and are now texting 988. They’re getting through. They’re talking to people quickly, and there’s tens of thousands of them that are doing it every month.

Rovner: And I imagine, particularly, younger people might well prefer to text than to actually talk to someone on the phone.

Wesolowski: Exactly. This is about making sure this resource is accessible to anyone and makes it as easy for them to get the help they need in the way that they prefer to get it. It is hard to get a young person to pick up the phone. So texting is absolutely critical to reach a population that is in crisis. There’s a youth mental health crisis in this country. And so making sure that we are responsive to the needs of youth and young adults is absolutely critical.

Rovner: So I see that mental health, in general, and the 988 program, in particular, got big funding boosts in the most recent omnibus spending bill. Republicans in the House, however, say they want to roll back funding for all of these domestic discretionary programs to fiscal 2022 levels. What would that mean for this program and for mental health in general?

Wesolowski: You’re right. 988 got [an] exponential increase in funding in the omnibus. It grew from $101.6 million in fiscal year 2022 to $501.6 million in fiscal year 2023. So nearly five times the funding. And it’s still not everything we estimated that is needed out there. Just to fund the local call centers alone, it would probably be more than $560 million. That doesn’t include the cost of operating the national network, the data integrity, the technical platforms, the backup networks, you know, all the resources that are needed to do this, plus public awareness. There still hasn’t been a widespread public awareness campaign of 988. So while $501.6 million is amazing, it’s still only a fraction of what we ultimately need. So thinking about future cuts to this … this is something that saves lives. There’s very clear data that lifelines save lives, and we’re telling people that this resource is there; to cut funding would mean that people [who need] help wouldn’t be able to connect to somebody when they need it most.

Rovner: So I know there’s been some resistance to using 988. Some folks, particularly on social media, warn that callers could be subject to police involvement or involuntary treatment or confinement. Tell us how it really works when someone calls. And are some of those concerns well placed or not?

Wesolowski: Every concern that is made about this system comes from a real place of people who have been in crisis and gotten a horrific and traumatic response. With 988, the thing that is important for people to understand is there is no way to know your location. There is no tracking of your information. This is 100% anonymous. In fact, right now we have the challenge of calls being routed based on area code and not somebody’s general geographic location. So, for example, I have a New Hampshire area code, love the great state of New Hampshire, but live in Virginia and have for many years — I would get routed to New Hampshire. I’m still talking to a crisis counselor. That’s wonderful. But we want to be connected locally. So there is no way that police can be dispatched or somebody can be taken to a hospital. Now, there are situations where the crisis counselor determines a person may be at imminent risk. They may be having thoughts of suicide, and the counselors are trained to look for that, in which case they’ll initiate emergency protocol to try to get the individual to share their location. And it’s less than 2% of contacts that an individual is at imminent risk. And many of those voluntarily share their location. So it’s a lengthy process when they don’t. And that means many minutes where we could lose a life. So it’s a challenging situation, but we know that that location is not available when somebody calls 988. And the intention is very much for this to be an anonymous resource that provides the least invasive intervention.

Rovner: So I’ve also seen concerns about just the lack of resources to back up the call centers, particularly in rural areas. What’s being done to build up the capacity?

Wesolowski: That’s one of the biggest challenges with this. 988 should be the entry point to a crisis continuum of care. When you call 911, you are connected to existing services: law enforcement, fire, EMS. 988 — we’re trying to build that system at the same time this resource is available. Many states already have robust mobile crisis response, which is a behavioral health-based response, rather than relying on law enforcement, which is unfortunately often the response that people see in their communities.

Rovner: And often doesn’t end well.

Wesolowski: Right. Often very tragic and traumatic circumstances — and it doesn’t get people the mental health care that they need. Unfortunately, [in] many communities, that’s still the main option. But more and more communities are getting mobile crisis response online, social workers, peer support specialists, nurses, EMTs, psychologists who staff those and provide a mental health-based response. But it’s much harder in rural areas. It takes longer to get to people. You’re covering a much bigger geographic area. And so that still is a challenge. You know, communities are looking at innovative ways that they can leverage existing emergency response to connect to behavioral health providers, like having law enforcement with iPads so they can leverage telehealth if somebody is in a crisis. But certainly, it’s a challenge and a solution that has to be very localized to the needs of that community.

Rovner: So what still is most needed? I know the law that created 988 also allows states to assess a fee on cellphones to help pay to boost mental health services. Are any states doing that yet?

Wesolowski: We have five states that have passed laws since 2020 to assess a monthly fee on all phone bills. That’s similar to how we fund 911. Everyone across the country already pays a 911 fee. Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, California, and Washington state all currently have legislation that has implemented a small fee on phone bills. It ranges from $0.12 to $0.40 per phone line per month. And that really is helping build out not just the 988 call centers, but that range of crisis services that can respond when somebody needs more help; it can be provided over the phone.

Rovner: Well, it sounds like it’s off to a good start. Hannah Wesolowski, thank you for coming back to update us, and I’m sure we’ll have you back again.

Wesolowski: Thank you so much, Julie. Always a pleasure.

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. Victoria, why don’t you kick us off this week?

Knight: My extra credit is “Emailing Your Doctor May Carry a Fee.” That’s the name of the article by Benjamin Ryan in The New York Times. So it basically was documenting how doctors practices are starting to charge for sending an email correspondence with a patient. I think we’ve all probably done that, especially during covid. It can be really helpful sometimes when you’re not feeling well and you don’t want to go into the office. But these doctors practices are starting to sometimes charge up to $30, $50 for this, and it’s going to become a new revenue stream for some clinics. And the example they gave in the story was the Cleveland Clinic that was doing this for some people.

Rovner: And the Cleveland Clinic, for people who don’t know, has a lot of patients. It’s a very large organization.

Knight: Yes. Yes, absolutely. So clinics are saying their doctors are spending time on this and so they need to be reimbursed for it. But the critics of this are saying it could discourage people from getting care when they need it. It also could contribute to health inequities, and also can contribute to doctor burnout, because they’re having to now really do these emails to contribute to the revenue stream. So anyway, super interesting, hasn’t happened to me yet, but I hope it doesn’t.

Rovner: The continued tension over doctors getting paid and patients having to pay and insurers having to pay. Rachel.

Roubein: My extra credit, it’s by my colleague, she’s a health and science reporter, Carolyn Y. Johnson, and it’s titled “I Wrote About High-Priced Drugs for Years. Then My Toddler Needed One.” And in her story, she describes her effort of essentially getting lost in the health care system and having to deal with a really complex system to get a pricey medication for her 3-year-old son. So her 3-year-old son was diagnosed with a rare type of childhood arthritis, which can cause young kids to suffer from daily spiking fevers, a fleeting rash, and arthritis. And doctors had recommended a really pricey drug, which required approval from her insurer. Aetna denied the request. In September, doctors wrote another test, which the insurer wanted. The denial was upheld again. She was able to get the medication through a free program offered by the drugmaker, but she was really worried because she was close to using up the last dose. She was calling it the insurer, etc., just really, really often. And, ultimately, the resolution was she was able to get a different high-cost drug that worked in a similar way approved because the request was subject to different rules. And the big-picture point that she makes is that this isn’t a unique story. It’s something that a lot of Americans deal with, a really frustrating, routine process known as prior authorization and step therapy, etc., trying to get coverage of medication that doctors think are needed.

Rovner: And boy, if it takes a professional health reporter that much time and effort to get this, just imagine what people who know less about the system have to go through. It was a really hard piece to read, but very good. Margot.

Sanger-Katz: I wanted to recommend an article from my colleague Amy Schoenfeld Walker called “Most Abortion Bans Include Exceptions. In Practice, Few Are Granted.” And I know that this connects with the abortion discussion that you guys had in the last episode, but I thought what she did was really remarkable. You know, we talk a lot in the political debate about abortion, about exceptions to protect the health of the mother, exceptions for fetuses that cannot survive outside the womb. And, of course, these very politically heated discussions about exceptions for rape and incest. And her article actually looked at the numbers of abortions that are being granted due to these exceptions and states that have them on the books and found that, you know, it’s so minimal that it’s almost not happening at all. If you are a woman who has been raped, if you are a woman who has a really serious health complication in a state where abortion has been banned, you almost always have to travel out of state, despite the existence of these exceptions. And I think this is not a huge surprise. It makes sense that medical providers are scared of getting in trouble when the sanction for being wrong is so high. And also that there aren’t a lot of abortion providers available in states that have banned abortion because there’s no place for them to practice. But I thought she did a really nice job of really putting numbers to this intuition that we all had about what was going to happen and showing how limited access is, and how meaningless in some ways these talking points are that, you know, legislators say that they are providing exceptions, but they’re not actually providing any infrastructure to provide care for the people who qualify.

Rovner: And yet we’re seeing these huge political fights in a lot of states about these exceptions, which, as we now know, don’t actually result in that much in actual practice. Well, my story this week is from Axios by former podcast panelist Caitlin Owens and Victoria here. It’s called “Republicans Break With Another Historical Ally: Doctors,” and it’s about the growing discord between the American Medical Association, long the bastion of male white Republican M.D.s, and Republicans in Congress, particularly Republican M.D.s themselves. The AMA has been moving, I won’t say left, but at least towards the center in recent years, reflecting in large part the changing demographics of the medical profession itself. And if you go back to our podcast of July 21 of last year, you can hear the “not that AMA-like” list of priorities from Jack Resnick, who’s the AMA’s current president. Well, the very conservative Republicans in Congress aren’t too thrilled and are describing the AMA as, quote, “woke” and prioritizing things that lawmakers don’t support, like the right to practice reproductive health according to their medical expertise and to treat teens with gender issues. I never thought I would say it, but it seems the Republicans in the AMA might actually be heading for a divorce. It’s a really great story. You really should 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. Also, 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. Margot?

Sanger-Katz: @sangerkatz

Rovner: Victoria?

Knight: @victoriaregisk

Rovner: Rachel.

Roubein: @rachel_roubein

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.

The abortion debate has changed dramatically in the seven months since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and its nationwide right to abortion. Nearly half the states have banned or restricted the procedure, even though the public, at the ballot box, continues to show support for abortion rights.

In this special, two-part podcast, taped the week of the 50th anniversary of the decision in Roe v. Wade, an expert panel delves into the fight, the sometimes-unintended side effects, and what each side plans for 2023.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Sarah Varney of KHN.

Panelists

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories

Sarah Varney
KHN

@sarahvarney4

Read Sarah's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Exemptions to state abortion bans came into question shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe, with national debate surrounding the case of a 10-year-old in Ohio who was forced to travel out of state to have an abortion — although, as a rape victim, she should have been able to obtain an abortion in her home state.
• The restrictions in many states have caused problems for women experiencing miscarriages, as medical providers fear repercussions of providing care — whether affecting their medical licenses or malpractice insurance coverage, or even drawing criminal charges. So far, there have been no reports of doctors being charged.
• A Christian father in Texas won a lawsuit against the federal government that bars the state’s Title X family-planning clinics from dispensing birth control to minors without parental consent. That change poses a particular problem for rural areas, where there may not be another place to obtain contraception, and other states could follow suit. The Title X program has long required clinics to serve minors without informing their parents.
• Top abortion opponents are leaning on misinformation to advance their causes, including to inaccurately claim that birth control is dangerous.
• Medication abortion is the next target for abortion opponents. In recent months, the FDA has substantially loosened restrictions on the “abortion pill,” though only in the states where abortion remains available. Some opponents are getting creative by citing environmental laws to argue, without evidence, that the abortion pill could contaminate the water supply.
• Restrictions are also creating problems for the maternal care workforce, with implications possibly rippling for decades to come. Some of the states with the worst maternal health outcomes also have abortion bans, leading providers to rethink how, and where, they train and practice.
• Looking ahead, a tug of war is occurring on state and local levels among abortion opponents about what to do next. Some lawmakers who voted for state bans are expressing interest in at least a partial rollback, while other opponents are pushing back to demand no changes to the bans. With Congress divided, decisions about federal government spending could draw the most attention for those looking for national policy changes.

And for extra credit, the panelists recommend their most memorable reproductive health stories from the last year:

Julie Rovner: NPR’s “Because of Texas’ Abortion Law, Her Wanted Pregnancy Became a Medical Nightmare,” by Carrie Feibel

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times Magazine’s “She Wasn’t Ready for Children. A Judge Wouldn’t Let Her Have an Abortion,” by Lizzie Presser

Sandhya Raman: ProPublica’s “’We Need to Defend This Law’: Inside an Anti-Abortion Meeting with Tennessee’s GOP Lawmakers,” by Kavitha Surana

Sarah Varney: Science Friday’s and KHN’s “Why Contraceptive Failure Rates Matter in a Post-Roe America,” by Sarah Varney

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• NPR’s “Doctors Who Want to Defy Abortion Laws Say It’s Too Risky,” by Selena Simmons-Duffin
• The Columbus Dispatch’s “Suspect Indicted in Rape of 10-Year-Old Columbus Girl Who Got Indiana Abortion,” by Bethany Bruner
• Reveal’s “The Long Campaign to Turn Birth Control Into the New Abortion”
• Reuters’ “Alabama Case Over Mistaken Pregnancy Highlights Risks in a Post-Roe World,” by Hassan Kanu
• Politico’s “The Next Abortion Fight Could Be Over Wastewater Regulation,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein
• The Washington Post’s “Abortion Bans Complicate Access to Drugs for Cancer, Arthritis, Even Ulcers,” by Katie Shepherd and Frances Stead Sellers
• The Washington Post’s “A Triumphant Antiabortion Movement Begins to Deal With Its Divisions,” by Rachel Roubein and Brittany Shammas
• NBC News’ “Abortion Rights Groups Look to Build on Their Victories With New Ballot Measures,” by Adam Edelman

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Part II: The State of the Abortion Debate 50 Years After ‘Roe’

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Part II: The State of the Abortion Debate 50 Years After ‘Roe’Episode Number: 282Published: Jan. 26, 2023

Tamar Haspel: A lot of us want to eat better for the planet, but we’re not always sure how to do it. I’m Tamar Haspel.

Michael Grunwald: And I’m Michael Grunwald. And this is “Climavores,” a show about eating on a changing planet.

Haspel: We’re here to answer all kinds of questions. Questions like: Is fake meat really a good alternative to beef? Does local food actually matter?

Grunwald: You can follow us or subscribe on Stitcher, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.

Julie Rovner: Hi, it’s Julie Rovner from KHN’s “What the Health?” What follows is Part II of a great panel discussion on the state of the abortion debate 50 years after Roe v. Wade, featuring Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Sarah Varney of KHN. If you missed Part I, you might want to go back and listen to that first. So, without further ado, here we go.

We already talked a little bit about the difficult legal situation that abortion providers or just OB-GYNs have been put into, worried about whether what they consider just medical care will be seen as an abortion and they’ll be dragged into court. But in Tennessee, doctors would actually have to prove in court that an abortion was medically necessary, which seems a bit backwards. So, basically, it’s do it, see if you get arrested, and then you’ll have to present an affirmative defense in court. But the other thing that we’re starting to see is doctors leaving states, women’s health clinics closing, medical students and residents choosing to train elsewhere. This could really lead to a doctor drain in significant parts of the country, right?

Sandhya Raman: Yeah, I was looking at before where some of the states that have some of the highest rates of maternal mortality, maternal morbidity, and just lower maternal health outcomes overall are some of the same ones that don’t have Medicaid expansion and also do not have access to abortion right now. And it’s one of the things where, looking ahead, there have been people sounding the alarm at how this is going to get amplified. And as folks that might be interested in this discipline that are in medical school, school or readying for residency, or another type of provider that works in this space, if they choose to not train in these states — and a lot of folks that train in states often end up staying in those states — even if there are changes in some of these laws in the near term, it could have a huge effect in the future in terms of who’s training and who’s staying there and who’s able to provide not just abortions, but other terms of pregnancy care and maternal care.

Sarah Varney: And the workaround has become much more difficult because it used to be that if you’re in a state where abortion was very difficult to access or even, say, Texas during S.B. 8, these medical students could go to other states for the training. But now that you have these huge swaths of the South and the Plains and the Midwest where they are not allowed to do abortions, there’s just not enough places for OB-GYN residents and medical students to go to train. I did a story about this last year as well and looked at these students who were in medical school, who were coming up to Match Day and at the end, at the very end before the deadline, actually changed their match altogether or changed their list of priorities altogether because they didn’t want to be in Texas. So instead of doing an OB-GYN residency in Texas, this one young woman changed to a family medicine practice in Maryland. And I think the thing that’s important for people to remember is that these are the future OB-GYNs that will help many of us with our pregnancies and births for many decades to come. And as we have seen, pregnancy is very complicated and it oftentimes doesn’t end well. You know, about 10% of all confirmed pregnancies end in miscarriage; a far higher number end in miscarriage that are not confirmed pregnancies. And these will be the doctors that are supposed to actually know how to do these procedures. So if you’re in a state like Texas and you have a daughter who’s 15 and you anticipate in 15 years she may want to have a baby, you have to think about what kind of medical care she can have access to then.

Rovner: I’ve talked to a lot of people, a lot of women, who want to get pregnant, who want to get pregnant and have kids, but they are worried about getting pregnant because if something goes wrong, they’re afraid they won’t be able to get appropriate medical care. They would like to get pregnant, but they would actually not like to risk their own lives in trying to have a baby. And that’s actually what we’re looking at in a number of these states. I guess this is the appropriate place to bring up the idea of “personhood,” the declaration, not medically based, that a separate person with separate rights is created at the moment of conception. That could have really sweeping ramifications, couldn’t it? They’re talking about that, I know, in several states.

Varney: Yes. You don’t have to probe far to find out that the pro-life movement is 100% behind a federal fetal rights … the Supreme Court last year didn’t take up a case about fetal rights yet, but many of the members of the court have expressed in previous writings, and even in the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] decision, you saw [Justice Samuel] Alito using the language of the state of Mississippi that essentially granted to the fetus all of the … even, like, personality of a full human being. So I think this is going to get really tricky because Kristan Hawkins and many of the leaders of the movement, Jeanne Mancini, they do believe that there is no distinction between a zygote and a fetus and a full human being. So now this is really a religious belief. And it was interesting. I really struggled last year. I had to … I was basically assigned to write a story about, you know, when does life begin? And I think it’s an interesting question we have to ask ourselves as journalists: Why should we do that story? Is that, in a sense, propaganda for the pro-life movement? When really what the question should be is, you have a full human being, the woman, at what point should her rights be impeded upon? Right? And that’s essentially what the Roe decision tried to do, was to strike that balance. But now we’re in a whole new world where fetal rights are really the … they almost have supremacy over women’s rights.

Rovner: Yeah, I did two stories on When Does Life Begin? And it turned into one of them is … really the question is when does pregnancy begin? One of the doctors I talked to said, rather, that pregnancy begins when we can detect it, which is in many ways true. A doctor can’t say that you’re pregnant unless they can detect it at that point. But that’s a really important distinction medically between, you know, when does life begin philosophically and when does a pregnancy actually begin. But, obviously, in places that are going to declare personhood, this is going to get really complicated really fast because it would mean that you mostly couldn’t do IVF, that you can’t create embryos and then not implant them. And of course, the way IVF works for most people who are infertile and would like to have children is that you take out the eggs, you fertilize them, you grow them to a certain cell size, and then you implant them back into the woman. But you don’t generally use all of the embryos. And that would be illegal if every one of those embryos was an actual person. Could you take tax deductions for children if the child hasn’t been born yet, but you’re pregnant? I think you can already do that in Georgia, right?

Varney: Correct. Yeah. The Department of Revenue did that there.

Rovner: Yeah. This could be really, really far-reaching.

Varney: I mean, that’s what’s been going on in Alabama for years. … When the Alabama state Supreme Court years ago agreed with this argument that a law that was put in place to try and go after parents who were bringing their children to meth labs, that the notion of the environment was no longer just the meth lab, but the womb itself. And a child also then meant a fetus in the womb. Now you’re in that territory already. So Alabama’s a very good way to look into the future, in a sense.

Rovner: So basically, if you’re pregnant and go into a bar, you could be threatening the fetus.

Varney: I mean, there’s kind of no limit, right? Like, did you drive recklessly? Did you slip or did you fall on purpose? I mean, that’s what I was saying earlier about it’s really going to be up to these local prosecutors to figure out how far they want to take this.

Rovner: And that’s not hypothetical. We’ve seen cases about a woman who fell down the stairs and had a miscarriage and was prosecuted for throwing herself down the stairs.

Varney: Or a woman who was pregnant and got into an altercation in a parking lot of a big-box store and got shot and the fetus died. And then she was arrested. I mean, eventually they dropped the charges, but. yeah.

Rovner: Well, moving on. So with narrow majorities in both houses of Congress for the party in charge, changing federal law in either direction seems pretty unlikely for the next two years, which leaves the Biden administration to try to reassure people who support abortion rights. But the Biden administration doesn’t have a long list of things that can be done by executive action either, beyond what they’ve done with the abortion pill, which we mentioned already — the FDA has loosened some of those restrictions. How has the Biden administration managed to protect abortion rights?

Alice Miranda Ollstein: First, along the lines of the FDA, the FDA has been called on by the pro-abortion rights side to drop the remaining restrictions on the abortion pill. So they’ve dropped some, but they still require a special certification for the doctors who prescribe it, a special certification for the pharmacies that are just newly allowed to dispense it. Patients have to sign something saying they understand the risks. These are called REMS. These are on drugs that are considered dangerous. And a lot of medical groups and advocates argue that there isn’t evidence that this is necessary, that the safety profile of these drugs is better than a lot of drugs that don’t have these kinds of restrictions. And so they said that it would improve access to drop these remaining rules around the pills. Some have even called for them to be available over the counter, although I don’t see that happening anytime soon. Along the lines of preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place, the FDA also is sitting on a decision of whether or not to make just regular hormonal birth control available over the counter. So that’s one to watch as well. But the Biden administration have more things they could do. They have looked at providing abortions through the VA [ Department of Veterans Affairs]. That was a big one. Earlier this year, the president signed a memo just over the weekend directing the health secretary and others in the Cabinet to look at what they can do to improve access. We’ve seen similar statements and memos before. It’s not really clear what they’ll mean in practice. But I also want to go back to you saying that nothing is likely to happen in Congress. I agree on the legislative side, but I am watching closely on the appropriations side, because I think that’s where you could see some attempts to pull things in one direction or another in terms of where federal spending goes. And going back to the group’s wastewater strategy, one piece of that they want to do, the anti-abortion groups, is pressure Republican members of Congress to hold the FDA’s funding hostage until they do certain environmental studies on the impacts of the pills. That’s where I would watch.

Rovner: Yeah, and spending bills over the years have been the primary place to do legislating on abortion restrictions or take them off. It’s not just the Hyde Amendment that banned most federal spending for abortion. There are amendments tucked into lots of different spending bills restricting abortion and other types of reproductive health care. And when Democrats are in charge, they try to take them out. And when Republicans are in charge, they try to put them back in. So I agree with Alice. I think we’re going to see those fights, although it’s hard to imagine anything happening beyond the status quo. I don’t think either side has the ability to change it, but I suspect that they’re going to try. The administration has gone after some states on the federal EMTALA law, right? The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which basically says that hospitals have to stabilize and take in women in active labor. And basically, if that conflicts with an abortion ban again, like with the FDA and drugs, federal law should supersede the state law. But we haven’t really seen any place where that’s come to a head, right?

Raman: Idaho has been the main one to watch with the lawsuit there. And the Justice Department did a briefing this week before their reproductive rights council met. And they had said that that was one of the cases they’re still doing — the Idaho, in addition to the lawsuit on the VA rule that Alice mentioned, and then also an FDA rule that we talked about earlier. But they’re monitoring different things going forward. But I think one of the interesting things is that they haven’t cast a very huge net in terms of the different things that they’ve been involved with in states. It’s mainly been these three situations. And even Idaho, they’ve already in that legislature introduced a bill that would amend their law as it is now, to deal with some of the nuances so that they would adhere to EMTALA. I don’t know how far that could go through or any of the logistics with that, but I mean, that sort of thing, the Idaho situation could be solved more quickly if they’re able to get that done. And DOJ [the Department of Justice] thinks that that aligns. But it is interesting that they haven’t dug into a lot of the other state efforts yet, but that they have that on their radar.

Varney: We have seen a sort of political battle being waged, of course. So on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Vice President Kamala Harris was in Florida, in Tallahassee, making the 50th-anniversary-of-Roe speech. Clearly, she wants [Gov. Ron] DeSantis to be on notice that should he become a candidate in the presidential election, that Florida is very much in play. And Florida is interesting because they still have a 15-week ban. So it would not have been allowed under Roe, but it’s not as draconian as what these other states have, which is essentially nothing.

Rovner: Most of the surrounding states, too.

Varney: Correct. Yeah, exactly. So Florida has really become a receiving state for abortions, particularly in the last six months. I’m going to be interested to see if somebody like a DeSantis can even run for president from a state with a 15-week ban. I mean, he’s going to be under a lot of pressure, not simply just to do a six-week ban, but to do an outright ban altogether. So I think if he tries to thread that needle and try and get anti-abortion groups on board to support him, he’s going to have to show them more.

Rovner: That’s just about what we’re going to get to. But before we leave, what the Biden administration has done, I need to mention, because it’s my own personal hobbyhorse — that the FDA has finally come out and changed the label on the “morning-after pill” to point out that it is not an abortion pill, that it does not cause abortion, that the way it works is by preventing ovulation. So there is no fertilized egg and that at least we can maybe put that aside, finally. That label change happened in Europe 10 years ago, and for some reason it took the FDA until now to make that clarification.

Varney: But as you said, Julie, it doesn’t matter because it’s just what you believe about the drug. You know, and just to remind listeners that that drug I did — I mean, we’ve all done stories on Plan B over the years — but the one I did recently was how Plan B is actually owned by a private equity company, actually two private equity companies. And they would not go to the mat to the FDA to get this thing changed. They could have done it years ago. So now that the FDA has made this … it’s just like anything, any kind of misinformation, that people who don’t support it can just simply say, well, the FDA is biased or that’s not actually how it works.

Rovner: True.

Varney: But I don’t think it will put it to bed.

Rovner: Well, quickly, let us turn to 2023 and what we might see for the rest of this year. We’ll start with the anti-abortion side. Obviously, overturning Roe was not the culmination of their efforts. They have some pretty ambitious goals for the coming year, right? Things like travel bans and limiting exceptions in some of these states. Sandhya, I see you nodding.

Raman: There are so many things, I think, on my radar that I’m hoping to watch this year just because we are in this whole new era where it might have been three years ago a lot easier for us to predict which things might be caught up in litigation, which things might be struck down. But I think now, after the Dobbs decision, even after the Texas S.B. 8 law that we mentioned earlier, it’s a lot more difficult to see what sort of things will go in effect that might not have been able to go into effect before. And one thing I think has been interesting is that the anti-abortion movement had been in unison before this on some of their traditional Hyde exceptions — that abortions to save the life of the mother, in cases of rape and incest were something that was broadly on board, that those would be allowed. And I think we’ve seen a lot increasingly in different states, things that have been brought up by different state lawmakers that would chip away at that, that vary by state, whether or not what defines is medically necessary to save a life. And even when we were talking about Idaho earlier with the EMTALA requirements or … there was a great piece in The New Yorker last year about the anti-abortion activist who really wants to lobby against rape exceptions because she was born as a product of rape and is using her own experience in that. And so I think that will be a very interesting thing to watch because there is not a uniform agreement on that. Whereas some of the things that have been taken out, there’s a lot more strong backing for across the board.

Rovner: Yeah, that’s actually my next question, which is we’re starting to see not only a split within the anti-abortion community about what to pursue, but a little bit of distance between the Republicans and the anti-abortion forces. And I think there’s a lot of Republicans who are uncomfortable with going further or who are uncomfortable even in some of the states that don’t have exceptions. I mean, are we looking at a potential breakup of this Republican anti-abortion team that’s been so valuable to both sides over the last few decades?

Ollstein: I wouldn’t call it a breakup, but the tension is absolutely there. I mean, I wouldn’t call it a breakup just because, where else are they going to go? I mean, the Democratic Party is much more supportive of abortion rights as a whole than even just a few years ago. And so, really, they know Republicans are their best bet for getting these restrictions passed. But there is this interesting tension right now. I think a lot of it is competing interpretations of what happened in this most recent election. You have anti-abortion groups who insist that the takeaway should be candidates didn’t run hard enough on banning and restricting abortion and were too wishy-washy, and that’s why they lost. And then you have a lot of other Republicans and party officials, party leaders who feel that they were too aggressive on promoting abortion restrictions and that’s why they lost. Also, you know, I will say this isn’t purely, purely cynical politics. A lot of Republican state lawmakers have told us they’re genuinely concerned now that they’re actually seeing the laws they drafted and voted for take effect and have consequences that they maybe didn’t intend. And they’re hearing from these state medical groups who are pleading for changes to be made. And so some of them say, OK, we want to get this right. We want to go back and make fixes. And the anti-abortion groups are telling them, no, don’t create loopholes. Don’t water down these laws. And so you do have this really interesting tug of war playing out at the state level right now. And because of what you said about the federal level, the state level is really where it’s at.

Varney: And I was going to make two points. One is that the split is also really developing between the national groups and the state and local groups. So while the national groups may say, yes, we support a 15-week ban in Florida as a step to get to something else, the local groups are gung-ho. I mean, they’re in extremely gerrymandered districts. You look at Florida and Texas, they elected the most anti-abortion state legislature in history so far. And, you know, these are people coming from extremely safe seats. And then you’ll see that the city level — the city sanctuary of the unborn, I believe it’s called — that movement, they really see them going down to even the local-local level to try and get that in effect.

Rovner: Well, I think in a lot of places, states that are very affirmatively supportive of abortion rights or have it in their constitution, are trying to move that down to the local level, to the city level, to see if they can actually have success in limiting abortion locality by locality. All right. Well, meanwhile, what’s the other side doing? What’s the agenda for the abortion rights side? It’s going to be, as we pointed out, it’s gonna be kind of hard for them to advance very much.

Ollstein: Yes. I think that there is a lot of excitement around the results last year using state-level ballot initiatives in red and purple states, putting the question of abortion rights to the general public, because on all six ballots last year, the abortion rights side prevailed. Some of those were more offensive, some of those were more defensive. But in all six, they swept. And so they are really excited about trying to replicate that this year. Of course, it’s not possible in every state to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot for a popular vote. But in states where it is possible and where it could make a difference, including some states where abortion is already banned and they could try to unban it through the popular vote process, that’s really something they’re looking at. And then, of course, even though our federal judiciary has become a lot more conservative over time with the appointments, courts have still been convinced to block a lot of these state abortion restrictions. And so there are efforts to bring lots of different, interesting legal theories. You know, one that caught my attention is trying to make religious freedom arguments against abortion bans, saying these abortion bans infringe on the rights of religious people who believe in the right to abortion, which is sort of flipping that narrative there.

Rovner: There have been a bunch of Jewish groups who have filed cases saying that.

Ollstein: Exactly. Judaism, Islam, certain Christian denominations, all support abortion rights. And so there’s an interesting tactic there. Also pointing to language in state constitutions about privacy rights and arguing that should extend to abortion. And so a lot of interesting stuff there.

Raman: I would add to that, in terms of another tactic that’s kind of flipping what the other side has been doing, a long-term strategy of the anti-abortion movement has been prioritizing judicial elections and a long-term thing of … just in the Senate, we saw, you know, wanting to get a lot of judges confirmed that had pro-life beliefs. And you can even look to where the women’s march over the weekend, that the state … one that they were prioritizing was in Wisconsin, which was held there, to jump-start the fact that they have a state Supreme Court race coming up. They were 4-3 conservative majority right now. And the judge that is retiring is conservative. So getting a new judge that supports abortion rights could really open a path to overturn the ban there. Even though judicial elections are considered nonpartisan, there are often ways to tell clues about where someone might rule in the future. And so, I think, looking at things like that in different states as a way to dial back some of the things that the other side has been doing will be an interesting thing to watch, too.

Rovner: All right. Well, I think that’s it for our discussion. Thank you, for those of you who have hung with us this long. I hope we’ve given a good overview of the landscape. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. Usually that’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. But this week I’ve asked each of the panelists to choose their favorite or most meaningful story about reproductive health from the last year. 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: Yes, I think I’ve promoted this story before, but I just can’t say enough good things about it. It’s really stuck with me. It’s from the New York Times Magazine by Lizzie Presser, and it’s called “She Wasn’t Ready for Children. A Judge Wouldn’t Let Her Have an Abortion.” And it really digs into what happens to teenagers who need to get their parent’s consent and can’t in order to have an abortion. They have this judicial bypass process where their lives, the fate of their lives are in the hands of an individual judge, who, in many cases, as this article demonstrates, come with their own biases and preconceptions about abortion. And then it just follows this one teenager who was denied an abortion, ended up having twins, and just completely struggled financially, her mental health. And she in the end said, you know, I knew what was right for me. I knew I needed an abortion. And it’s a very moving, painful story that shines a light on a piece of the story that I think is overlooked.

Rovner: Yeah. Sandhya.

Raman: For my extra credit, I picked a story that also has stuck in my head for a long time, kind of like Alice. So it’s “‘We Need to Defend This Law’: Inside an Anti-Abortion Meeting with Tennessee’s GOP Lawmakers,” from Kavitha Surana from ProPublica. I really thought this was one of the most interesting pieces on this topic that I read last year. The author got audio from a webinar in Tennessee hosted by the Tennessee Right to Life on strategy on the movement going ahead in their state. They talk a lot about the Tennessee ban and how it has narrow life exceptions as a model for other states and how the burden of proof would be on the doctor. And then they have some quotes from a Tennessee lawmaker who suggests things that I think the other side has sounded the alarm about: mining data to investigate doctors, how to push back against rape and incest exceptions. And I think one of the things that really struck me was when they brought up IVF, some of the advocates during the meeting that they had said that two years from now, next year, or three years from now, IVF and contraception can be regulated on the table. But that’s like next steps.

Rovner: Absolutely. That was a great scoop, that story. Sarah.

Varney: So I actually picked a radio segment. It’s about a 12-minute-long radio segment that I did with Science Friday. On “Why Contraceptive Failure Rates Matter in a Post-Roe America.” So one of the things I kept hearing was, well, women are just going to have to really double up on contraception or make sure that they’re being responsible about taking their contraception. So it turns out that there’s a textbook on contraceptive technology and in that is a whole page on contraceptive failure rates, which show you what contraceptive failure rates should be in a laboratory and what they are actually out in the real world. So, for instance, the typical-use failure rate for birth control pills is 7%. So that means that seven out of 100 women on pills could experience pregnancy in the first year of use. So then I went and found the data that shows us the number of women ages 15 to 49 who are on specific methods of birth control, everything from the Depo-Provera to the contraceptive ring and patch to male condoms, to IUDs, to birth control pills. And you’ll see on both the Science Friday and the KHN website, we have these wonderful graphics where you can see that in one year of people using male condoms, because of their failure rate is about 13% in the real world, that could lead to up to 513,000 wanted pregnancies. Birth control pills, based on the number of women using birth control pills, up to 460,000 pregnancies a year in people who are actually using contraception to not get pregnant. So I think these data visualization is really important. And you can hear interviews that I did with the researcher and the physician who actually is the author of this textbook, as well as one of the world’s leading reproductive endocrinologists who talks about what’s next in contraceptive efficacy.

Rovner: Yes, I loved that story. Well, my story is also a radio story. It’s from NPR by Carrie Feibel. And it’s called “Because of Texas’ Abortion Law, Her Wanted Pregnancy Became a Medical Nightmare.” And it’s from July. And the events that it chronicles happened before the overturn of Roe v. Wade, because, as we’ve said, Texas’ abortion ban was already in effect. By now, we’ve heard this story many times. A woman with desired pregnancies, water breaks prematurely, which would normally result in a quote-unquote “medical termination.” Except the doctors and hospitals aren’t sure how sick the mom needs to be before the pregnancy actually threatens her life. And any other abortion is illegal, and they could get in legal trouble. So they put her through days of hell and sickness before she starts to show signs of sepsis and just before she and her husband were actually going to fly out of the state to get the pregnancy terminated. But this was the first of these stories that I read. And it hit me very hard. And I have such respect for the couple here who were willing to come forward and publicize all that the women called these gray areas of abortion, which lawmakers often think of as black-and-white. It was just one of those stories that sticks with you.

All right. That is our show for this week. 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. Also, 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. Sandhya?

Raman: @SandhyaWrites

Rovner: Alice?

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein

Rovner: Sarah.

Varney: And @SarahVarney4

Rovner: Will be back in your feed with our regular news rundown 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.

The abortion debate has changed dramatically in the seven months since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and its nationwide right to abortion. Nearly half the states have banned or restricted the procedure, even though the public, at the ballot box, continues to show support for abortion rights.

In this special two-part podcast, taped the week of the 50th anniversary of the Roe decision, an expert panel delves into the fight, the sometimes-unintended side effects, and what each side plans for 2023.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Sarah Varney of KHN.

Panelists

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories

Sarah Varney
KHN

@sarahvarney4

Read Sarah's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Exemptions to state abortion bans came into question shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe, with national debate surrounding the case of a 10-year-old in Ohio who was forced to travel out of state to have an abortion — although, as a rape victim, she should have been able to obtain an abortion in her home state.
• The restrictions in many states have caused problems for women experiencing miscarriages, as medical providers fear repercussions of providing care — whether affecting their medical licenses or malpractice insurance coverage, or even drawing criminal charges. So far, there have been no reports of doctors being charged.
• A Christian father in Texas won a lawsuit against the federal government that bars the state’s Title X family-planning clinics from dispensing birth control to minors without parental consent. That change poses a particular problem for rural areas, where there may not be another place to obtain contraception, and other states could follow suit. The Title X program has long required clinics to serve minors without informing their parents.
• Top abortion opponents are leaning on misinformation to advance their causes, including to inaccurately claim that birth control is dangerous.
• Medication abortion is the next target for abortion opponents. In recent months, the FDA has substantially loosened restrictions on the “abortion pill,” though only in the states where abortion remains available. Some opponents are getting creative by citing environmental laws to argue, without evidence, that the abortion pill could contaminate the water supply.
• Restrictions are also creating problems for the maternal care workforce, with implications possibly rippling for decades to come. Some of the states with the worst maternal health outcomes also have abortion bans, leading providers to rethink how, and where, they train and practice.
• Looking ahead, a tug of war is occurring on state and local levels among abortion opponents about what to do next. Some lawmakers who voted for state bans are expressing interest in at least a partial rollback, while other opponents are pushing back to demand no changes to the bans. With Congress divided, decisions about federal government spending could draw the most attention for those looking for national policy changes.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Elizabeth Nash, who tracks state reproductive health policies for the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights research group.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Part I: The State of the Abortion Debate 50 Years After ‘Roe’

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Part I: The State of the Abortion Debate 50 Years After ‘Roe’Episode Number: 281Published: Jan. 26, 2023

Tamar Haspel: A lot of us want to eat better for the planet, but we’re not always sure how to do it. I’m Tamar Haspel.

Michael Grunwald: And I’m Michael Grunwald. And this is “Climavores,” a show about eating on a changing planet.

Haspel: We’re here to answer all kinds of questions. Questions like: Is fake meat really a good alternative to beef? Does local food actually matter?

Grunwald: You can follow us or subscribe on Stitcher, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.

Julie Rovner: Hi! This is Julie Rovner from KHN’s “What the Health?” We’re doing a special episode this week trying to summarize the state of the abortion debate in the wake of the Supreme Court’s overturn of Roe v. Wade. We have the very best group of experts and reporters I could think of. And the conversation was so good and so long that for the first time we’re breaking it into two parts. So here’s Part I. 

Today we are joined via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning.

Rovner: And my KHN colleague Sarah Varney.

Sarah Varney: Hey.

Rovner: We will actually get to our panel a little bit later. That’s because on this special episode of “What the Health?” we’re taking a deep dive into the state of abortion access on the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. We’re going to get our bearings first by hearing from Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights research group. As you’ll hear, Elizabeth is a walking encyclopedia of state abortion rules and regulations. So here’s the interview, and then we’ll be back for our group discussion. 

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast Elizabeth Nash, who tracks state legislative activity on reproductive health issues for the Guttmacher Institute. Elizabeth knows more than probably any other single person about the state of abortion laws and how they’ve changed over time and has been an invaluable resource for me over the many years I have covered this issue. I could think of no one better to kick off our special episode on the state of abortion rights in 2023. Elizabeth, welcome to “What the Health?”

Elizabeth Nash: Thank you. That is the most flattering introduction, and I am glad I have been able to help.

Rovner: Well, I can honestly say that I’ve given up on trying to keep track of where abortion is legal, illegal, or somehow restricted since Roe was overturned last June. Is it safe to say this is the most rapid change in state rules since you’ve been tracking this?

Nash: Yes, to put a point on that, I started tracking 1999. So I do have some sense of the longevity of what we’re talking about. And going back even further, the rules weren’t changing all that quickly in 1973 or ’5. I mean, they were changing somewhat quickly. But when we look at what is happening right now, it really is a sea change, right? We have a quarter of the states — so there are 14 states — where abortion is unavailable, right? In 12 of those states, that’s due to abortion bans. In two other states,it’s because of other things that have happened. And so you’re looking at, already, the South, the Plains, the Midwest … abortion access has been extremely difficult to come by. And then we’re seeing what’s happening in the progressive states, at the same time, to expand access. So it’s been on both ends of the spectrum, right? Expanding and restricting. And it literally is all over the map.

Rovner: Is there any way to divide them into categories that make it easier to track? I know in some states …  we all know about these six states where there were voter ballot measures. Some of them have been legislative issues and some of them are stuck in court on both sides, right?

Nash: Oh, yes, absolutely. So beyond these 14 states where abortion is unavailable … so you’re really thinking about the Texases, Louisianas, Mississippis, Arkansas, Oklahomas of the world. There’s another group of states where there are abortion bans that were enacted before the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] ruling and now are tied up in court. And we’re thinking about states like Utah, Wyoming, also Indiana, even though that one happened after the Dobbs ruling. They came into special session and passed an abortion ban and now it’s tied up in the courts. But we have a lot of pieces that are moving through the court system. And what is different now than before the Dobbs ruling in June is that most of these cases are in state court. And so we’re now having to rely on state constitutions to protect abortion rights. And in many of these states, the state constitutions haven’t been evaluated and tested in this way. So this is a whole brand-new batch, essentially, of court cases about what do we expect? What are the kinds of clauses that are being used to support abortion rights and to hopefully strike down these abortion bans?

Rovner: I know for years, even decades, anti-abortion groups were united in their desire to see Roe overturned. Now that it has been, are you surprised with how much farther some are trying to get states to go beyond just straight abortion bans?

Nash: You know, I think Dobbs came down and those … activists and advocates in the movement said they’re not going to stop here. And they haven’t, right? So the general public thought, oh, maybe this is settled. And those in the movement said, no, wait, this is one more step in the journey. Also, yes, we are seeing more efforts even in these states that have abortion bans that aren’t even implemented looking to pass more restrictions. And you’re like, what could they possibly do? Well, there’s been a real focus by abortion opponents on medication abortion. Because they know people are accessing medication abortion online, they want … abortion opponents want to try to hem that in and stop that from happening. So more restrictions on medication abortion, even potentially legislation that would prevent access to websites that have information about abortion on them. So looking at a range of types of policies around medication abortion, also seeing some more restrictions potentially that could prevent abortion funds and support organizations from doing their good work. ’Cause one of the conversations after the Dobbs ruling in June was, well, if people leave the state to access abortion, could we ban them from travel? Well, we probably won’t see a lot of legislation that specifically bans people from leaving the state for an abortion. But we will see some legislation around trying to give them fewer options, such as making it harder for abortion funds and practical support organizations to fulfill their mission or legislation that prevents businesses from supporting their employees to go to another state and access abortion.

Rovner: I was struck by a piece you wrote last month on exceptions to abortion bans, particularly for rape or incest or the life or health of the pregnant woman. I am old enough to remember the early 1990s when Congress spent several years debating whether to add back rape and incest exceptions to the federal “Hyde Amendment.” They had been there originally. They were dropped out in the 1980s and then there was a huge fight over getting them back. But you point out that for all the effort on the issue, these exceptions don’t actually mean very much. Why is that?

Nash: Well, to put it in a few words, abortion opponents see exceptions as loopholes, and they’re trying to narrow those so-called loopholes so that it’s impossible to access care. So I think the public generally had this sense that, oh, there must be exceptions if someone’s health is at risk, or their life is in danger and perhaps some other situations, right? So that just general understanding the public might have. Well, in fact, one, those kinds of health exceptions just really never existed at all. And the fight really was what you’re talking about, around rape and incest, maybe a genetic anomaly of the fetus. And on top of that, when they were added, they really are these incredibly narrowly worded exceptions that make it impossible for someone to get an abortion under them. A lot of times people would be required to report to the legal authorities. Well, that could be very traumatizing for a sexual assault survivor. They may not be there emotionally. They may be expecting additional blowback from the authorities. Unfortunately, that has been part of the history, right? And so, having to relive all of that is a problem. So really, these exceptions are basically meaningless. And yet we’re expecting to see fights over them in 2023. And particularly in some of these states where we’ve seen abortion bans. Tennessee is one example where there’s an abortion ban in effect and basically there is no access to abortion, in part because there’s a provision of that ban that says that the provider has to give out an affirmative defense if they provide an abortion. And, basically, that means that there will be no abortions provided in Tennessee.

Rovner: Because if you provide one, you’ll still end up in court, even if it’s legitimate.

Nash: Yes, you’ll end up in court. It’s a huge expense. And if you lose, you’ll have all of these penalties and, potentially, loss of license … there’s a lot at stake. And so in Tennessee, there is a potential of a debate around exceptions. And again, I think this is about abortion opponents trying to make their bans look less bad. Right? This is about, oh, well, we’ll add in some exceptions. People will think we’re doing something and, in effect, it means nothing. So really, where we need to start moving towards — and, of course, advocates are moving towards this — it’s more about how do you bring along the public and others who need to roll back abortion bans? They don’t serve any public health good.

Rovner: There seems to be this growing — I won’t even call it a rift yet, but a separation between a lot of Republicans who’ve traditionally voted for abortion bans because they knew they weren’t going to go into effect. So it looked good. And they have that section of their base that they make happy. Well, now that we’re shooting with real bullets, if you will, some of those Republicans seem to be getting a little antsy about some of the bans, particularly when they’re hearing about doctors who are afraid to provide not just abortion care, but sometimes routine or emergency care for women with problem pregnancies.

Nash: Yeah, it’s very true. And yes, Republicans in these states, particularly conservative states, are in a bit of a pickle. They’re trying to placate their base that has been arguing for abortion bans without any exceptions. And now they see their opportunity with the fall of Roe. And then you have the public, the much larger public that supports abortion access and, in fact, is getting more supportive of abortion access because the rubber has hit the road. We are seeing the impact of abortion bans, and it is around abortion access. It is also around what you’re seeing in maternal health care. And also in these conservative states, we’re seeing a conversation among providers that is, Do I stay in this state? Can I remain here knowing that I cannot provide all the care my patients need and deserve?

Rovner: That’s the big irony, is that banning abortion could end up having fewer rather than more pregnancies, because I know a lot of women who are afraid to get pregnant lest they have complications that they won’t be able to get treated.

Nash: Yeah, absolutely. And if patients are feeling supported and know that they can get the care that they need, then that can change the whole trajectory, at least for a few years of their life. Because people may decide, OK, I’m going to delay my childbearing until I feel comfortable and in a situation where I feel that my health will be taken care of.

Rovner: Well, I think there will be a lot more for you to follow this year and in the next couple of years. You’re going to have to make your spreadsheet bigger. I look forward to continuing to do this. Elizabeth Nash, thank you for your work, and thank you again for joining us.

Nash: Thank you so much for having me. It was a real treat to talk to you. I followed your work for forever.

Rovner: We will definitely have you back.

OK. We are back with Alice [Miranda] Ollstein, Sandhya Raman, and Sarah Varney. I’ve tried to order this discussion by topic, and while we won’t get to everything, I hope we’ll at least get a good idea of the landscape since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last June. I want to start by talking about some of the immediate or almost immediate effects of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on June 24. Abortion rights advocates had been arguing for years, in some cases decades, about some of the things that might happen if Roe was overturned. Mostly, they were told the equivalent of “Don’t worry your pretty little heads over those things; they won’t happen.” But in fact, a lot of them did, starting almost immediately with the case of a 10-year-old in Ohio who was raped and had to go to Indiana to end the resulting pregnancy. Abortion opponents first claimed it was made up. Then when it was proved true, the Indiana attorney general went after the doctor who treated the child. This whole fight is still actually going on, isn’t it? Alice, I see you nodding.

Ollstein: Yes. So there are not criminal charges against this doctor or, that we know of, any doctor yet. You know, that was one feared thing that has not materialized, mainly because doctors have proven very cautious and unwilling to even do anything that could be seen as violating these state bans. So what’s at issue in the Indiana case is around the medical licensing — so not criminal charges. But still it’s very intimidating for the doctor. Her name was dragged all over the news and she got lots of threats, etc. And I think what really jumped out most for me from that case is, theoretically, the child should have been able to get an abortion in Ohio under these purported exemptions to the state’s ban. And yet both the child and her caretakers thought it was necessary to go out of state. And that really shows how these exemptions may exist on paper but are really difficult and, in some cases, impossible to use in practice. 

Varney: And the other thing that that case I think shows was that the response from those who oppose abortion was sort of immediate, that this did not happen. This was made up. We saw Jim Jordan come out with some tweets essentially saying this was just a hoax. And then when they actually found this 27-year-old man and they DNA-tested him and they arrested him, there’s been crickets actually from that side. And I think that also indicated to us what we’ve been seeing now over the last couple of months. What I heard on Friday at the March for Life in Washington and again at the National Pro-Life Summit as well in Washington, just this absolute denial, really, that all of these things are happening. I brought specific cases to people that I interviewed, both the soldiers on the ground to leaders of the movement, to say, “Here’s what’s happening in Louisiana, this particular case in Texas.” And 2-to-1, they said, “This is not happening. This is made up. These physicians are just doing this because they want to send a message.” And then when you interview obstetricians and gynecologists who are opposed to abortion rights, they too say that, “Oh, this is all just made up, that the exceptions are very clear. We know what to do to save a woman’s life.” So I think this is a whole other front … this sort of misinformation campaign about the actual impact on the ground of these abortion bans.

Rovner: Yeah. And to follow up on that, I mean, another thing that was predicted is that the lives and health of pregnant women who were not seeking abortions but who experienced pregnancy complications could be negatively affected. And that is definitely happening, right? These are among the things that the anti-abortion movement says are not happening. But we’ve now seen story after story of women, particularly, whose water breaks too early for even premature infants to survive and who end up basically being stuck in this limbo because their doctor is worried about violating the law, but also worried about keeping the woman alive.

Raman: There are a number of doctors who’ve spoken up about some of the risks that they felt firsthand of defying some of these state bans, even when it’s a serious health or emergency risk or having to go through hospital lawyers before they can act. And I think there’ve been a lot of cases, especially in Missouri and Texas, and I think the Texas Medical Association last year even appealed to the state medical board because of the difficulty they had in treating some of these serious health issues for pregnant individuals because of the risk … that it just kind of creates this layered effect where, on one hand, some of these state laws don’t even exactly lay out what is an emergency, what isn’t an emergency, how do you define imminent death, how mental health fits in? Even though that can be, as we know, a serious health risk as well. And it just — a number of layers to figuring out an already tricky situation when dealing with an emergency health situation should be pretty straightforward.

Rovner: And yet … 

Varney: And it’s interesting, too, I also posed this exact question to marchers on Friday. And 2-to-1 they said, “Well, first of all, we don’t really understand pregnancy. We don’t understand fetal development. We certainly don’t understand fetal demise. We’re … none of us are doctors.” None of the people out there, most of them at least, were not doctors. But, you know, saying very specifically, that case in Louisiana that KHN and NPR reported about a woman who was … she had a 4-year-old. She wanted to be pregnant. She started hemorrhaging, was obviously miscarrying. She went to a hospital. She was turned away. She was bleeding profusely, in intense pain, went back to a second hospital, also turned away because they could still detect a faint fetal activity, fetal cardiac activity. And so when I posed this really specific question to some of the people at the march, they said, “Well, this is what God wants. God wants her to return to her home and let this baby die, or she should birth this baby and then bury it.” This sort of disconnect between what’s happening to a person who’s miscarrying and their religious beliefs about what should happen are completely far apart.

Ollstein: Yeah, what’s really come to the fore is that the treatment for a miscarriage or a pregnancy complication and an abortion medically are the same in so many cases. It’s the same drugs you take. It’s the same procedure to empty the uterus. And so restrictions on one will inevitably impact the other. And that’s what we’re really hearing from doctors who, again, because of the chilling effect created by these laws, are afraid to do things that would risk them getting charged, risk them losing their licenses, you know, issues with malpractice insurance. And so they are really erring on the side of not providing this care in a lot of circumstances.

Rovner: And sometimes there are women who are not even pregnant getting caught up in this. In Alabama, a woman was jailed for using illegal drugs that threatened her unborn child, except she’s now suing for false imprisonment because she was not pregnant. Some states are basically criminalizing every stage of pregnancy, right?

Ollstein: This has been an issue since before Dobbs, for sure. I mean, and it’s not just red states. In California, two women were incarcerated for taking drugs and having pregnancy loss. And so I think this has been exacerbated by the fall of Roe v. Wade and this new aggressive era with the anti-abortion officials becoming emboldened. But it’s certainly not the first time we’ve seen this happen.

Rovner: And Sarah, you were talking about Alabama, in particular?

Varney: Alabama has sort of perfected this. Steve Marshall, who’s their current attorney general, was a local prosecutor in a county that essentially came up with this notion that you could extend these chemical endangerment laws to pregnant women. There was a woman who was in prison for 10 years after she used drugs during her pregnancy and had a stillbirth. And it’s hard to say that these kinds of laws are helping these women or helping them with their addiction issues. And I think the thing that I’m really on the lookout for — and we’re all national reporters, but I’m sure, like many of you, I travel to these states — I think what’s difficult is that in a place like Alabama, this is really now up to local prosecutors. So, as we saw, that was a case where a family member called the police and reported this woman saying that she was using drugs and that she was pregnant. Now, did this family member actually know she was pregnant or not, or was she just trying to seek some sort of revenge? I have no idea. But you’re right. She was then jailed and then kept saying, “Give me a pregnancy test, I’ll take it!” And then, sure enough, she, of course, wasn’t pregnant. But, you know, it’s up to individual prosecutors in Idaho, in Alabama, in Texas. They can sort of do what they want now, and especially in these states that have fetal rights written into their constitutions. This is really the next front.

Rovner: Well, and of course, the biggest thing of all that we were told — insisted it was not going to happen — anti-abortion activists said they never intended nor wanted to limit birth control. But that really is starting to happen, isn’t it?

Raman: I mean, we could even see this last year. The House did their vote on a bill to codify contraception, and it did not get much bipartisan support. And of the eight Republicans then that voted for it, five of them are no longer in office. One of them, in particular, that is there of the three, Nancy Mace of South Carolina, spoke a lot when we had the recent abortion votes in the House about how she wanted there to be votes on things like birth control first, before they went to look at abortion. But it seems like there’s not as much an appetite among Republican lawmakers federally to do that right now.

Rovner: Yeah, I think Nancy Mace is trying to be the Lisa Murkowski of the House, trying to have it all ways.

Varney: I’m actually about to go to Texas to do a story for the NewsHour about this Title X lawsuit. So this was a father, you guys probably heard about this, but this is a Christian father of three daughters who sued to say — his lawyer is Jonathan Mitchell, who was the lawyer for the S.B. 8 case and is involved in a lot of anti-abortion conservative causes. And …

Rovner: S.B. 8, for those who don’t remember, it’s the Texas law that was in effect before Roe was overturned, that basically — the bounty to turn in somebody you think has something to do with abortion, and you can win money!

Varney: Correct. And was clearly in violation of Roe but was allowed to stand. Well, so, this lawyer, on behalf of this father and his children, has sued the federal government to the same federal judge that S.B. 8 went through. And they won. So now in Texas, if you are a minor, you cannot go into Title X clinics for the first time since the Nixon administration and get birth control. And if you live in a rural area like Amarillo, you really don’t have any other options. And of course, there’s lots of evidence that shows why parental consent actually is harmful when it comes to reproductive health, particularly for girls. So now we’re going to be shooting that story. But I think there’s a lot of concern among the Title X administrators in the different states where abortion is banned, and there are these very active anti-abortion groups, that they will essentially extend this Title X ruling to their other states without even having to go to the courts. They’ll just say, well, they did it in Texas, so we can now do it in Alabama.

Rovner: And funny, there was a giant fight about exactly this in the Reagan administration, which was before I started covering this. But I read about it. It was called the “Squeal Rule.” It was an effort to actually require parental involvement in girls getting birth control from Title X clinics. And it was struck down by a federal judge. Basically, it has been doctrine ever since, and law, that teens are allowed to go seek care from Title X clinics and they don’t have to tell their parents. Obviously, Title X clinics don’t provide abortions. They’re not allowed to by federal law. But teens are definitely, have been allowed to seek birth control without parental involvement. And if this lawsuit ends up getting upheld, that’s going to change, too.

Varney: I’ll be interested, though, if I can ask, because I’m curious about your opinions on all this, is that, again, when I was at the march and that summit, you know, I asked every single person I interviewed, well, OK, so you want to stop abortion? What about birth control? Knowing full well that for many of these people, most of them are deeply religious and they do not believe in birth control. But Kristan Hawkins, from the Students for Life, her line, which I have heard from others as well, is, quote, “Chemical birth control is dangerous to women.” So I will be curious to see how we as journalists confront the misinformation that has always been percolating in pro-life circles for many, many years. But how will we confront that misinformation in our stories? You know, I actually chose, in my reporting for the NewsHour over the weekend, not to use that clip, because I would then have to go into several paragraphs of, actually, that’s not the case. So I’m curious what we’re going to do about that, because they will make that claim. And then are we going to treat it in the same way that we treated, you know, Donald Trump when he would sort of make things up? 

Rovner: Well, there’s also the further complication — if you go back to the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case in 2014 — is that some people and organizations oppose some types of birth control because they say — this is sort of famously with the IUD, the intrauterine device — that it can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, and therefore that’s a very early abortion, or some types of progesterone, [that] only birth control can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. It turns out in most cases that is not the case scientifically, but that is still their belief. And the Hobby Lobby case basically said, if you believe it, that’s your religion and you can have it that way. So it’s already a complicated case, and I’m sure we will see more of this going forward. But I want to drill a little bit deeper on the future of the abortion pill, mifepristone, which actually does end a pregnancy. It’s the first of a two-drug combination used for medication abortion. Both sides in the abortion debate seem to be zeroing in on medication abortion as the next big target: abortion rights forces, because the ability to end an early pregnancy without going to a physical abortion clinic or having surgery, it’s preferable for now a majority of people seeking abortions; anti-abortion forces are against it for pretty much the same reason. It’s a way for abortions to continue mostly out of public sight. So let’s start with the abortion rights side. What’s being done to make the pill more easily available? We’ve had a lot of activity on that front just in the last couple of weeks, right?

Ollstein: Yeah. So there’s been efforts for years now to petition the FDA to loosen the restrictions around who can get the pill, where they can get it, when they can get it. And that has slowly led to those rules being loosened over time. So a couple of years ago, the FDA moved to allow telemedicine prescriptions and patients being able to receive the pills by mail. At first, they said, OK, just during the pandemic because it’s too dangerous to go into a clinic. And then they said, OK, we looked at the data, and actually this is safe to do permanently. And then just very recently, they said that those prescriptions can also be sent to retail pharmacies. So you can pick them up at your local CVS or Walgreens. And that is broadening where and when and how patients can get these pills. But again, only in states where their use is not already banned or severely restricted, which is, you know, a lot of states right now. Some of those laws are blocked in court, so the exact count is always fluctuating. But it’s around 18 states where that is not … those options for obtaining the pills are not there for patients right now.

Rovner: There’s also lawsuits challenging these bans, right? Sandhya, I see you nodding.

Raman: We have three main lawsuits that I think that we’re all watching right now. We have one from last year from anti-abortion groups that is challenging the 2000 approval of mifepristone, on the grounds of it should rescind the approval by the FDA. And so the next step is, as early as next month, the judge there in that case could issue a preliminary injunction that would mean that there wouldn’t be mifepristone nationwide, not just in that district. And the thing about that case that’s interesting is, I think, regardless of what we see happen there, it will get appealed and that would go to the 5th Court of Appeals, which is notorious for doing a lot of the Obamacare cases that we’ve seen in the health space over the past few years.

Rovner: And a lot of abortion cases over the years, too.

Raman: Yes, yes.

Rovner: Because it’s what Texas and the 5th Circuit in Texas and Louisiana and a couple of other Southern states. 

Raman: Yeah. And then the second two … came yesterday. And they’re interesting in that they’re on the state level in that one of the main manufacturers of mifepristone GenBioPro is suing in West Virginia over the fact that the state abortion laws that they say are at odds with mifepristone in the state due to the near-total ban. And then, in North Carolina, a physician is also suing saying that the state laws essentially are also at war with the federal jurisdiction over this.

Rovner: Yeah, basically, they’re saying that states can’t individually, basically, make unavailable a drug that’s been approved by the FDA because think of how that would be if every state could decide whether every drug was going to be legal in that state, we would have basically chaos with a lot more than just the abortion pill.

Ollstein: Arguably, we do, basically, have chaos right now.

Rovner: That is a fair point. There were cases in Massachusetts several years ago about a new opiate that eventually there’s a federal court that said, no, no, no, Massachusetts, we get what you’re trying to do, but you can’t overrule the FDA. Basically, if the FDA says this is safe and effective and it’s going to be available, then you have to abide by that. So we will see if that’s going to happen with the abortion pill.

Varney: Can I just add something? 

Rovner: Yes.

Varney: That I was just reading about abortion pill bans in different states, including South Dakota. And the targeted advertisement I got from Google was for a company called hims, which is for Viagra. So I’m reading here about how abortion pills are not allowed, abortion is illegal, and I hope this is a family podcast, but this is an advertisement that anybody can see. It says: Get hard, stay hard, and last longer. So this is the advertisement you get when you go to the AP and you read a story about abortion.

Rovner: Great. So the other side is also having some creative ways to go after the abortion pill. I don’t think it’s them who’s planting the advertisements for men. But Alice, you uncovered this story about some groups charging that the pill can cause environmental damage in wastewater, right?

Ollstein: Yes. So, look, anti-abortion groups know people are still obtaining these pills in states where they’re not allowed to do so. And so they are looking to, you know, whatever they can look at in order to block that from happening. And they’re trying to get really creative. And so one of the several new things they’re trying is they’re trying to cite environmental laws in order to get state lawmakers to pass new restrictions, in order to get state AGs to move in and do more enforcement actions to stop the use of these pills. So they are alleging that because people take the pills at home and have an abortion at home, that goes into the wastewater, that that is a risk to wildlife, livestock, humans. There is not evidence for this right now. I talked to people who study the effect of other pharmaceuticals in wastewater, and they say that this is just infinitesimal, but this is something they’re trying. Again, it’s not the only thing they’re trying. But, you know, it could have some legs. They’ve already convinced one state to introduce legislation specifically along these lines — West Virginia — saying that any doctor that prescribes the pill also has to give the patient a medical waste bag in order to bag the abortion and not have it go into the wastewater. They are trying to do this in other states. You know, the goal is, again, to stop the use of the pills altogether.

Varney: And when I was at the summit on Saturday, they had an hour-and-a-half-long session on this. And it was in this ballroom, and it was just packed with high school and college students primarily. And they plan on doing a taste-the-water challenge at different campuses; they’re starting in Texas. And they said very specifically, we are not going to have any signs that say anything about how we’re pro-life or opposed to abortion. We’re not going to have anything that says “fetus.” We’re just going to have glasses of water up on the table at these campuses and we’re going to invite students to step up and taste the water. And then we’re going to tell them that there is likely traces of the abortion pill in this water. And so they’re going to use high school students and college students to sort of run these taste-the-water challenges, to bring in this new idea and spread it around.

Rovner: Super. Can’t wait. All right. Well, moving on. One of the interesting outcomes of this decision is that it’s also affecting people who aren’t pregnant, don’t have anything to do with being pregnant. There have been a bunch of stories about women of childbearing age being unable to get medications for lupus and other conditions. How is that happening?

Ollstein: Well, again, you know, these things are not just used for one purpose. This actually came up pretty recently because some medical groups were petitioning the FDA to add more things to the abortion pill label so that they can be more legally protected in obtaining these medications for non-abortion purposes. Right now, the pill is only technically supposed to be prescribed for an abortion, but it’s used off-label for all of these other medical treatments. And so you have instances where pharmacists who are also newly empowered right now to deny prescriptions to people based on what they assume it’s being used for. And that’s leading to a lot of patients not being able to obtain prescriptions for other conditions.

Rovner: And for other drugs, right? I mean, drugs that can cause abortion, but aren’t the abortion pill. I’m thinking mostly of methotrexate, which is used for a lot of different conditions, but is also in some countries used as an abortion pill. And we’ve seen lots of cases where people are unable to get their methotrexate prescriptions refilled. People who have been using it for years. So that’s been complicated.

That’s it for Part I of our special, two-part podcast on the state of the abortion debate 50 years after Roe v. Wade. Don’t forget to download Part II, which will be right after this in your feed. It’s got the rest of our discussion, plus some very special extra credit. Thanks for listening.

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.

While repealing the Affordable Care Act seems to have fallen off congressional Republicans’ to-do list for 2023, plans to cut Medicare and Medicaid are back. The GOP wants Democrats to agree to cut spending on both programs in exchange for a vote to prevent the government from defaulting on its debts.

Meanwhile, the nation’s health care workers — from nurses to doctors to pharmacists — are feeling the strain of caring not just for the rising number of insured patients seeking care, but also more seriously ill patients who are difficult and sometimes even violent.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico, Tami Luhby of CNN, and Victoria Knight of Axios.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Tami Luhby
CNN

@luhby

Read Tami's stories

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Conservative House Republicans are hoping to capitalize on their new legislative clout to slash government spending, as the fight over raising the debt ceiling offers a preview of possible debates this year over costly federal entitlement programs like Medicare.
• House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said Republicans will protect Medicare and Social Security, but the elevation of conservative firebrands — like the new chair of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee — raises questions about what “protecting” those programs means to Republicans.
• Record numbers of Americans enrolled for insurance coverage this year under the Affordable Care Act. Years after congressional Republicans last attempted to repeal it, the once highly controversial program also known as Obamacare appears to be following the trajectory of other established federal entitlement programs: evolving, growing, and becoming less controversial over time.
• Recent reports show that while Americans had less trouble paying for health care last year, many still delayed care due to costs. The findings highlight that being insured is not enough to keep care affordable for many Americans.
• Health care workers are growing louder in their calls for better staffing, with a nursing strike in New York City and recent reports about pharmacist burnout providing some of the latest arguments for how widespread staffing issues may be harming patient care. There is bipartisan agreement in Congress for addressing the nursing shortage, but what they would do is another question.

Plus, for extra credit, the panelists recommend their favorite health policy stories of the week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: Roll Call’s “NIH Missing Top Leadership at Start of a Divided Congress,” by Ariel Cohen

Tami Luhby: CNN’s “ER on the Field: An Inside Look at How NFL Medical Teams Prepare for a Game Day Emergency,” by Nadia Kounang and Amanda Sealy

Joanne Kenen: The Atlantic’s “Don’t Fear the Handshake,” by Katherine J. Wu

Victoria Knight: The Washington Post’s “‘The Last of Us’ Zombie Fungus Is Real, and It’s Found in Health Supplements,” by Mike Hume

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

The New York Times’ “As France Moves to Delay Retirement, Older Workers Are in a Quandary,” by Liz Alderman

Stat’s “Congressional Medicare Advisers Warn of Higher Drug Prices, Despite New Price Negotiation,” by John Wilkerson

Click to Expand

Episode 280 Transcript

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: As US Bumps Against Debt Ceiling, Medicare Becomes a Bargaining ChipEpisode Number: 280Published: Dec. 19, 2023

Tamar Haspel: A lot of us want to eat better for the planet, but we’re not always sure how to do it. I’m Tamar Haspel.

Michael Grunwald: And I’m Michael Grunwald. And this is “Climavores,” a show about eating on a changing planet.

Haspel: We’re here to answer all kinds of questions. Questions like: Is fake meat really a good alternative to beef? Does local food actually matter?

Grunwald: You can follow us or subscribe on Stitcher, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.

Julie Rovner: Hello! 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, Jan. 19, 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 Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.

Joanne Kenen: Good morning, everybody.

Rovner: Tami Luhby of CNN.

Tami Luhby: Good morning.

Rovner: And Victoria Knight of Axios.

Victoria Knight: Good morning.

Rovner: So Congress is in recess this week, but there is still plenty of news, so we’ll get right to it. The new Congress is taking a breather for the MLK holiday, having worked very hard the first two weeks of the session. But there’s still plenty going on on Capitol Hill. Late last week, House Republicans leaked to The Washington Post a plan to pay only some of the nation’s bills if the standoff over raising the debt ceiling later this year results in the U.S. actually defaulting. Republicans say they won’t agree to raise the debt ceiling, something that’s been done every couple of years for decades, unless Democrats agree to deep spending cuts, including for entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — why we are talking about this. Democrats say that a default, even a partial one, could trigger not just a crisis in U.S. financial markets, but possibly a worldwide recession. It’s worth remembering that the last time the U.S. neared a default but didn’t actually get there, in 2011, the U.S. still got its credit rating downgraded. So who blinks in this standoff? And, Tami, what happens if nobody does?

Luhby: That’s going to be a major problem for a lot of people. I mean, the U.S. economy, potentially the global economy, global financial markets, but also practical things like Social Security recipients getting their payments and federal employees in the military getting paid, and Treasury bond holders getting their interest payments. So it would be a giant mess. [Treasury Secretary Janet] Yellen last week in her letter to [House Speaker Kevin] McCarthy, signaling that we were going to hit the debt ceiling, likely today, urged Congress to act quickly. But instead, of course, what just happened was they dug their heels in on either side. So, you know, we have the Republicans saying that we can’t keep spending like we are. We don’t have just an unlimited credit card. We have to change our behavior to save the country in the future. And the White House and Senate Democrats saying this is not a negotiable subject. You know, we’ve been here before. We haven’t actually crossed the line before. So we’ll see what happens. But one of the differences is, this year, that McCarthy has a very narrow margin in the House. Any one of his members — this is among the negotiations that he did not want to agree to but had to after 15 rounds of voting for his job — any member can make a motion to vacate the speaker’s chair. And if that happens, then we don’t have to worry about the debt ceiling because we have to worry more about who’s going to be leading the House, because we can’t deal with the debt ceiling until we actually have someone leading the House. So this is going to be even more complicated than in the past.

Rovner: Just to be clear, even if we hit the debt ceiling today, that doesn’t mean we’re going to default, right? I mean, that’s not coming for several months.

Luhby: Right. So Social Security, seniors and people with disabilities, and the military and federal employees don’t have to yet worry about their payments. They’re going to be paid. The Treasury secretary and Treasury Department will take what’s called “extraordinary measures.” They’re mainly just behind-the-scenes accounting maneuvers. They won’t actually hurt anybody. Yellen had said that she expects these extraordinary measures in cash to last at least until early June, although she did warn that the forecast has considerable uncertainty, as does everything around the debt ceiling.

Rovner: So, Victoria, obviously, the sides are shaping up. Is this going to be the big major health fight this year?

Knight: I think it’s going to be one of the big topics that we’re definitely talking about this year in Congress. I think it’s going to be a dramatic year, as we’ve already seen in these first two weeks. My colleagues at Axios, we talked to some Republicans last week, asking them about: Do you actually think they will make cuts to entitlement programs, to Medicare, Medicaid? Is that realistic? It’s kind of a mixed bag. Some are like, yeah, we should look at this, and some are like, we don’t really want to touch it. I think they know it’s really a touchy subject. There are a lot of Medicare beneficiaries that don’t want the age increase. You know, there’s some talk of increasing the age to 67 rather than 65. They know that is a touchy subject. Last week in a press conference, McCarthy said, “We’re Republicans; we’ll protect Medicare and Social Security,” so they know people are talking about this. They know people are looking at it. So I think in a divided government, obviously, the Senate is in Democratic control. I think it seems pretty unlikely, but I think they’re going to talk about it. And we have a new Ways and Means chairman, Jason Smith from Missouri. He’s kind of a firebrand. He’s talked about wanting to do reform on the U.S. spending. So I think it’s something they’re going to be talking about. But I don’t know if that much will actually happen. So we’ll see. I have been talking to Republicans on what else they want to work on this year in Congress. I think a big thing will be PBM [pharmacy benefit managers] reform. It’s a big topic that’s actually bipartisan. So I think that’s something that we’ll see. These are the middlemen in regards to between pharmacies and insurers. And they’re negotiating drug prices. And we know there are going to be hearings on that. I think health care costs. There’s some talk about fentanyl, scheduling. But I think in regards to big health care reform, there probably isn’t going to be a lot, because we are in a divided government now.

Kenen: Just one thing about how people talk about protecting Medicare and Social Security, it doesn’t mean they don’t want to make changes to it. We’ve been through this before. Entitlement reform was the driving force for Republicans for quite a few years under … when Paul Ryan was both, I guess it was budget chair before he was speaker. I mean, that was the thing, right? And he wanted to make very dramatic changes to Medicare, but he called it protecting Medicare. So there’s no one like Ryan with a policy really driving what it should look like. I mean, he had a plan, yet the plan never got through anywhere. It died, but it was an animating force for many years. It went away for a minute in the face of the last 10 years that were about the Affordable Care Act. So I don’t think they’re clear on what they want to do. But we do know some conservative Republicans want to make some kind of changes to Medicare. TBD.

Rovner: And Tami, we know the debt ceiling isn’t the only place where House Republicans are setting themselves up for deep cuts that they might not be able to make while still giving themselves the ability to cut taxes. They finessed some of this in their rules package, didn’t they?

Luhby: Yes, they did. And they made it very clear that they, in the rules, they made it harder to raise taxes. They increased it to a supermajority, 3/5 of the House. They made it easier to cut spending in the debt ceiling and elsewhere. And, you know, the debt ceiling isn’t our only issue that we have coming up. It’s going to be right around the same time, generally, maybe, as the fiscal 2024 budget, which will necessitate discussion on spending cuts and may result in spending cuts and changes possibly to some of our favorite health programs. So we will see. But also just getting back to what we were talking about with Medicare. Remember, the trustees estimate that the trust fund is going to run out of money by 2028. So we’ll see in a couple of months what the latest forecast is. But, you know, something needs to be done relatively soon. I mean … the years keep inching out slowly. So we keep being able to put this off. But at some point …

Rovner: Yeah, we keep getting to this sort of brinksmanship, but nobody, as Joanne points out, ever really has a plan because it would be unpopular. Speaking of which, while cutting entitlement programs here is still just a talking point, we have kind of a real-life cautionary tale out of France, where the retirement age may be raised from 62 to 64, which is still younger than the 67, the U.S. retirement age is marching toward. It seems that an unintended consequence of what’s going on in France is that employers don’t want to hire older workers. So now they can’t get retirement and they can’t find a job. And currently, only half of the French population is still employed by age 62, which is way lower than other members of the European Union. France is looking at protests and strikes over this. Could the same thing happen here, if we might get to that point? It’s been a while since we’ve seen the silver-haired set out on the street with picket signs.

Knight: I think it would be pretty contentious, I think, if they decide to actually raise the age. It’ll be interesting to see [if] there are actual protests, but I think people will be very upset, for sure, especially people reaching retirement age having counted on this. So …

Kenen: They probably wouldn’t do it like … if you’re 62, you wouldn’t [go] to 67. When they’ve talked about these kinds of changes in the past, they’ve talked about phasing it in over a number of years or starting it in the …

Rovner: Right, affecting people in the future.

Kenen: Right.

Rovner: But I’m thinking not just raising the retirement age. I’m thinking of making actual big changes to Medicare or even Medicaid.

Kenen: Well, there’s two things since the last debate about this. Well, first of all, Social Security was raised and it didn’t cause … it was raised slowly, a couple of months at a time over, what, a 20-year period. Is that right? Am I remembering that right, Julie?

Rovner: Yeah, my retirement age is 66 and eight months.

Kenen: Right. So … it used to be 65. And they’ve been going, like, 65 and one month, 65 and two months. It’s crept up. And that was done on a bipartisan basis, which, of course, not a whole lot is looking very bipartisan right now. But I mean, that’s the other pathway we could get. We could get a commission. We could move toward some kind of changes after … last time there was a commission that failed, but the Social Security commission did work. The last Medicare commission did not. The two sides are so intractable and so far apart on debt right now that there’s probably going to have to be some kind of saving grace down the road for somebody. So it could be yet another commission. And also in 2011, 2012, which was the last time there was the big debate over Medicare age, was pre-ACA [Affordable Care Act] implementation. And, you know, if you’re 65 and you’re not working, if they do change the Medicare in the out years, it’s complicated what it would do to the risk pools and premiums and all that. But you do have an option. I mean, the Affordable Care Act would … right now you only get it to Medicare. That would have to be changed. So it’s not totally the same … I’m not advocating for this. I’m just saying it is a slightly different world of options and the chessboard’s a little different.

Rovner: Well, clearly, we are not there yet, although we may be there in the next couple of months. Finally, on the new Congress front. Last week, we talked about some of the new committee chairs in the House and Senate. This week, House Republicans are filling out some of those critical subcommittee chairs. Rep. Andy Harris, a Republican from Maryland who’s also an anesthesiologist who bragged about prescribing ivermectin for covid, will chair the Appropriations subcommittee responsible for the FDA’s budget [the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration subcommittee]. Things could get kind of interesting there, right?

Knight: Yeah. And there is talk that he wanted to chair the Labor [Health and Human Services, Education] subcommittee, which would have been really interesting. He’s not.

Rovner: Which would’ve been the rest of HHS. We should point out that in the world of appropriations, FDA is with Agriculture for reasons I once tried to figure out, but they go back to the late 1940s. But the rest of HHS is the Labor HHS Appropriations subcommittee, which he won’t chair.

Knight: Right, he is not. Rep. Robert Aderholt is chairing Labor HHS. But this is, as we were talking about, they’re going to have to fund the government. Republicans are talking about wanting to pass 12 appropriations bills. If they actually want to try to do that, they’re going to have to do a lot of negotiations on what goes into the Labor HHS bill, what goes into the AG bill with FDA, with these chairs over the subcommittees, they’re going to want certain things in there. They’re going to maybe want oversight of these agencies, especially in regards to what’s happening with covid, what’s going on with the abortion pills. So I think it’ll be really interesting to see what happens. It seems unlikely they’re actually going to be able to pass 12 appropriations bills, but it’s just another thing to watch.

Rovner: I would point out that every single Congress, Republican and Democrat, comes in saying, we’re going to go back to regular order. We’re going to pass the appropriations bills separately, which is what we were supposed to do. I believe the last time that they passed separately, and that wasn’t even all of them, was the year 2000; it was the last year of President [Bill], it might have been. It was definitely right around then. When I started covering Congress, they always did it all separately, but no more.

Luhby: And they want to pass the debt ceiling vote separately.

Rovner: Right, exactly. Not that much going on this year. All right. Well, last week we talked about health insurance coverage. Now it is official. Obamacare enrollment has never been higher and there are still several weeks to go to sign up in some states, even though enrollment through the federal marketplace ended for the year on Sunday. Tami, have we finally gotten to the point that this program is too big to fail or is it always going to hang by a political thread?

Luhby: Well, I think the fact that we’re all not reporting on the weekly or biweekly enrollment numbers, saying “It’s popular, people are still signing up!” or under the Trump years, “Fewer people are signing up and it’s lost interest.” I think that in and of itself is very indicative of the fact that it is becoming part of our health care system. And I mean, I guess one day I’m not going to write the story that says enrollment opens on Nov. 1, then another one that says it’s ending on Jan. 15.

Rovner: I think we’ll always do that because we’re still doing it with Medicare.

Luhby: Well, but I’m not. So … it’s possible, although now with Medicare Advantage, I think it is actually worth a story. So that’s a separate issue.

Rovner: Yes, that is a separate issue.

Luhby: But yeah, no, I mean, you know, I think it’s here to stay. We’ll see what [District Judge Reed] O’Connor does in Texas with the preventive treatment, but …

Rovner: Yes, there will always be another lawsuit.

Luhby: There will be chips around the edges.

Kenen: I mean, this court has done … we all thought that litigation was over, like we thought, OK, it’s done. They’ve … upheld it, you know, however many times, move on. But this Supreme Court has done some pretty dramatic rulings and not just Roe [v. Wade], on many public health measures, about gun control and the environment and vaccine mandates. And, of course, you know, obviously, Roe. Do I think that there’s going to be another huge existential threat to the ACA arising out of this preventive care thing? No, but we didn’t think a lot of the things that the Supreme Court would do. There’s a real ideological shift in how they approach these issues. So politically, no, we’re not going to see more repeal votes. In the wings could there be more legal issues to bite us? I don’t think it’s likely, but I wouldn’t say never.

Rovner: In other words, just because congressional Republicans aren’t still harping on this, it doesn’t mean that nobody is.

Kenen: Right. But it’s also, I mean, I agree with Tami … I wrote a similar story a year ago on the 10th anniversary: It’s here. They spent a lot of political capital trying to repeal it and they could not. People do rely on it and more … Biden has made improvements to it. It’s like every other American entitlement: It evolves over time. It gets bigger over time. And it gets less controversial over time.

Rovner: Well, we still have problems with health care costs. And this week we have two sort of contradictory studies about health care costs. One from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found a three-percentage-point decline in the number of Americans who had trouble paying medical bills in 2021 compared to the pre-pandemic year of 2019. That’s likely a result of extra pandemic payments and more people with health insurance. But in 2022, according to a survey by Gallup, the 38% of patients reported they delayed care because of cost. That was the biggest increase ever since Gallup has been keeping track over the past two decades, up 12 percentage points from 2020 and 2021. This has me scratching my head a little bit. Is it maybe because even though more people have insurance, which we saw from the previous year. Also more have high-deductible health plans. So perhaps they don’t want to go out and spend money or they don’t have the money to spend initially on their health care. Anybody got another theory? Victoria, I see you sort of nodding.

Knight: I mean, that’s kind of my theory is, like, I think they just have high-deductible plans, so they’re still having to pay a lot out-of-pocket. And I know my brother had to get an ACA plan because he is interning for an electrician and — so he doesn’t have insurance on his own, and I know that, like, it’s still pretty high and he just has to pay a lot out-of-pocket. He’s had medical debt before. So even though more people have health insurance, it’s still a huge issue, it doesn’t make that go away.

Rovner: And speaking of high medical prices, we are going to talk about prescription drugs because you can’t really talk about high prices without talking about drugs. Stat News reports this week that some of the members of the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, or MedPAC, are warning that even with the changes to Medicare that are designed to save money on drugs for both the government and patients — those are ones taking effect this year — we should still expect very high prices on new drugs. Partly that’s due to the new Medicare cap on drug costs for patients. If insurers have to cover even the most expensive drugs, aside from those few whose price will be negotiated, then patients will be more likely to use them and they can set the price higher. Are we ever going to be able to get a handle on what the public says consistently is its biggest health spending headache? Victoria, you kind of previewed this with the talk about doing something about the middlemen, the PBMs.

Knight: Yeah, I think it’s really difficult. I mean, the drug pricing provisions, they only target 20 of the highest-cost drugs. I can’t remember exactly how they determine it, but it’s only 20 drugs and it’s implemented over years. So it’s still leaving out a lot of drugs. We still have years to go before it’s actually going into effect. And I think drugmakers are going to try to find ways around it, raising the prices of other drugs, you’re talking about. And even though they’re hurt by the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act], they’re not completely down and out. So I don’t know what the answer is to rein in drug prices. I think maybe PBM reform, as I said, definitely a bipartisan issue. This Congress … I think will actually have maybe some movement and we’ll see if actually legislation can be passed. But I know they want to talk about it. So, I mean, that could help a little bit. But I think drugmakers are still a huge reason for a lot of these costs. And so it won’t completely go away even if PBMs have some reforms.

Rovner: And certainly the American public sees drug costs as one of the biggest issues just because so many Americans use prescription drugs. So they see every dollar.

Knight: Yes.

Rovner: So the good news is that more people are getting access to medical care. The bad news is that the workforce to take care of them is burned out, angry, and simply not large enough for the task at hand. The people who’ve been most outspoken about that are the nation’s nurses, who’ve given the majority of the care during the pandemic and taken the majority of patient anger and frustration and sometimes even violence. We’re seeing quite a few nurses’ strikes lately, and they’re mostly not striking for higher wages, but for more help. Tami, you talked to some nurses on the picket line in New York last week. What did they tell you?

Luhby: Yeah, I had a fun assignment last week. Since I live in the Bronx, I spent two days with the striking nurses at the Montefiore Medical Center, and there were 7,000 nurses at Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan and Montefiore in the Bronx that went on strike for three days. It was a party atmosphere there much of the time, but they did have serious concerns that they wanted to relay and get their word out. There was a lot of media coverage as well. Their main issue was staffing shortages. I mean, the nurses told me about terrible working conditions, particularly in the ER. Some of them had to put babies on towels on the floor of the pediatric ER or tell sick adults that they have to stand because there aren’t even chairs available in the adult ER, much less beds or cots. And every day, they feared for their licenses. One said that she would go to sleep right when she got home because she didn’t want to think about the day because she was concerned she might not want to go back the next day. And she said, heartbreakingly, that she was tired of apologizing to families and patients, that she was stretched too thin to deliver better care, that she was giving patients their medicines late because she had seven other patients she had to give medicine to and probably handle an emergency. So the nurses at Montefiore, interestingly, they’re demanding staffing. But one thing they kept repeating to me, you know, the leaders, was that they wanted enforcement ability of the staffing. They didn’t just want paper staffing ratios, and they wanted to be more involved in recruitment. While the hospitals — interestingly, this is not necessarily over in New York as it probably won’t be elsewhere. These hospitals reached a tentative agreement with the unions, but there’s another battle brewing. The nurses’ contract for the public hospital system expires on March 2, and the union is already warning that will demand better pay and staffing.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, it’s not just the nurses, though. Doctors are burnt out by angry and sometimes ungrateful patients. Doctors in training, too. And I saw one story this week about how pharmacists, who are being asked to do more and more with no more help — a similar story — are getting fried from dealing with short-tempered and sometimes abusive patients. Is there any solution to this, other than people trying to behave better? Is Congress looking at ways to buttress the health care workforce? This is a big problem. You know, they talked about, when they were passing the Affordable Care Act, that if you’re going to give all these people more insurance, you’re going to need more health care professionals to take care of them.

Knight: Yeah.

Rovner: Yet we haven’t seemed to do that.

Knight: Yeah, I know. It’s something that is being talked about. My colleague Peter [Sullivan] at Axios talked to both Sen. [Bernie] Sanders and Sen. [Bill] Cassidy about things they might want to work on on the HELP [Health, Education, Labor & Pensions] Committee. And I know that the nursing workforce shortage is one thing they do actually agree on. So it’s definitely possible. I do think the medical provider workforce shortage is maybe a bipartisan area in this Congress that they could work on. But I mean, they’ve been talking about it forever. And will they actually do something? I’m not sure. So we’ll see. But I know nursing …

Rovner: Yeah, the spirit of bipartisanship does not seem to be alive and well, at least yet, in this Congress.

Knight: Yeah, well, between the House and the Senate. Yeah, well, we’ll see.

Kenen: But the nursing shortage is, I mean, been documented and talked about for many, many years now and hasn’t changed. The doctor shortage is more controversial because there’s some debate about whether it’s numbers of doctors or what specialties they go into. I mean, and, also, do they go to rich neighborhoods or poor neighborhoods? I mean, if you’re in a wealthy suburb, there’s plenty of dermatologists. Right? But in rural areas, certain urban areas … So it’s not just in quantity. It’s also an allocation both by geography and specialty. Some of that Congress could theoretically deal with. I mean, the graduate medical education residency payment … they’ve been talking about reforming that since before half of the people listening to this were born. There’s been no resolution on a path forward. So some of these are things that Congress can nudge or fix with funding. Some of it is just things that have to happen within the medical community, some cultural shift. Also student debt. I mean, one reason people start out saying they’re going to go into primary care and end up being orthopedic surgeons is their debt. So it’s complicated. Some of it is Congress. Not all of it is Congress. But Congress has been talking about this for a very, very, very, very, very long time.

Rovner: I will point out — and Joanne was with me when this happened — when Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act in 1997, they cut the number of residencies that Medicare would pay for with the promise — and I believe this is in the report, if not in the legislation — that they would create an all-payer program to help pay for graduate medical education by the next year, 1998. Well, now it’s 2023, and they never did that.

Kenen: They meant the next century.

Rovner: We’re a fifth — almost a quarter of the way — through the next century, and they still haven’t done it.

Kenen: And if you were on the front lines of covid, the doctors and the nurses, I mean, at the beginning they had no tools. So many people died. They didn’t know how to treat it. There were so many patients, you know, in New York and other places early on. I mean, it was these nurses that were holding iPads so that people could say goodbye to their loved ones. I don’t think any of us can really understand what it was like to be in that situation, not for 10 minutes, but for weeks and over and over …

Rovner: And months and years, in some cases.

Kenen: Right. But I mean, the really bad … it’s years. But these crunches, the really traumatic experiences, I mean, we’ve also talked in the past about the suicide rate among health care providers. It’s been not just physically exhausting, it’s become emotionally unimaginable for those of us who haven’t been in those ICU or ERs.

Rovner: Well, it’s clear that the pandemic experiences have created a mental health crisis for a lot of people. Clearly, people on the front lines of health care, but also lots of other people. This week, finally, a little bit of good news for at least one population. Starting this week, any U.S. military veteran in a mental health crisis can get free emergency care, not just at any VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] facility, but at any private facility as well. They don’t even have to be in the VA health system because many former members of the military are not actually eligible for VA health care. This is for all veterans. It’s actually the result of a law passed in 2020 and signed by then-President [Donald] Trump. How much of difference could this change, at least, make? I mean, veterans in suicidal crises are also, unfortunately, fairly common, aren’t they?

Kenen: Yeah, but I mean, we have a provider shortage, so giving them greater access to a system that doesn’t have enough providers, I mean, will it help? I would assume so. Is it going to fix everything? I would assume not. You know, we don’t have enough providers, period. And there are complicated reasons for that. And that’s also … they’re not all doctors. They’re, you know, psychologists and social workers, etc. But that’s a huge problem for veterans and every human being on Earth right now. I mean, everybody was traumatized. There’s degrees of how much trauma people had, but nobody was untraumatized by the last three years. And the ongoing stresses. You can be well-adjusted traumatized. You could be in-crisis traumatized. But we’re all on that spectrum of having been traumatized.

Knight: Yeah.

Rovner: Well, lots more work to do. OK. That’s the news for this week. Now it is time for our extra-credit segment, where we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. 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. Victoria, why don’t you go first this week?

Knight: The story that I’m recommending is called “‘The Last of Us’ Zombie Fungus Is Real, and It’s Found in Health Supplements.” It’s in The Washington Post by Mike Hume. “The Last of Us” is a new HBO show everyone’s kind of talking about. And, basically, people become zombies from this fungus. Turns out that fungus is real in real life. It’s spread by insects that basically infect people and then kind of take over their minds and then shoot little spores out. And in the show, they do that as well, except they don’t spread by spores. They spread by bites. But it’s used in health supplements for different things like strength, stamina, immune boost. So it’s kind of just a fun little dive into a real-life fungus.

Rovner: To be clear, it doesn’t turn people into zombies.

Knight: Yes. To be clear, it does not turn people into zombies. If you eat it, that will not happen to you. But it is based on a real-life fungus that does infect insects and make them zombies.

Rovner: Yes. [laughter] It’s definitely creepy. Tami.

Luhby: My story is by my fantastic CNN colleagues this week. It’s called “ER on the Field: An Inside Look at How NFL Medical Teams Prepare for a Game Day Emergency.” It’s by my colleagues Nadia Kounang, Amanda Sealy, and Sanjay Gupta. Listen, I don’t know anything about football, but I happened to be watching TV with my husband when we flipped to the channel with the Bills-Bengals game earlier this month, and we saw the ambulance on the field. So like so many others, I was closely following the story of Damar Hamlin’s progress. What we heard on the news was that the team and the medical experts repeatedly said that it was the care on the field that saved Hamlin’s life. So Nadia, Amanda, and Sanjay provide a rare behind-the-scenes look at how hospital-quality treatment can be given on the field when needed. I learned that — from the story and the video — that there are about 30 medical personnel at every game. All teams have emergency action plans. They run drills an hour before kickoff. The medical staff from both teams review the plan and confirm the details. They station certified athletic trainers to serve as spotters who are positioned around the stadium to catch any injuries. And then they communicate with the medical team on the sidelines. But then — and this is what even my husband, who is a major football fan, didn’t know this — there’s the all-important red hat, which signifies the person who is the emergency physician or the airway physician, who stands along the 30-yard line and takes over if he or she has to come out onto the field. And that doctor said, apparently, they have all the resources available in an emergency room and can essentially do surgery on the field to intubate a player. So I thought it was a fascinating story and video even for non-football fans like me, and I highly recommend them.

Rovner: I thought it was very cool. I read it when Tami recommended it. Although my only question is what happens when there’s a team, one whose color is red and there are lots of people wearing red hats on the sidelines?

Luhby: That’s a good point.

Rovner: I assume they still can find the doctor. OK, Joanne.

Kenen: There was a piece in The Atlantic by Katherine J. Wu called “Covid Couldn’t Kill the Handshake.” It had a separate headline, depending on how you Googled it, saying “Don’t Fear the Handshake.” So, basically, we stopped shaking hands. We had fist bumps and, you know, bows and all sorts of other stuff. And the handshake is pretty much back. And yes, your hands are dirty, unless you’re constantly washing them, your hands are dirty. But they are not quite as dirty as we might think. We’re not quite as dangerous as we may think. So, you know, if you can’t get out of shaking someone’s hand, you probably won’t die.

Rovner: Good. Good to know. All right. My extra credit this week is a story I wish I had written. It’s from Roll Call, and it’s called “NIH Missing Top Leadership at Start of a Divided Congress,” by Ariel Cohen. And it’s not just about not having a replacement for Dr. Tony Fauci, who just retired as the longtime head of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases last month, but about having no nominated replacement for Frances Collins, who stepped down as NIH [National Institutes of Health] director more than a year ago. In a year when pressure on domestic spending is likely to be severe, as we’ve been discussing, and when science in general and NIH in particular are going to be under a microscope in the Republican-led House, it doesn’t help to have no one ready to catch the incoming spears. On the other hand, Collins’ replacement at NIH will have to be vetted by the Senate HELP Committee with a new chairman, Bernie Sanders, and a new ranking member, Bill Cassidy. I am old enough to remember when appointing a new NIH director and getting it through the Senate was a really controversial thing. I imagine we are back to exactly that today.

OK. That’s our show for this week. As always, if you enjoyed the podcast, you could 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 to our KHN webteam, who have given the podcast a spiffy new page. 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 still at Twitter, for now, where I’m @jrovner. Tami?

Luhby: I’m @Luhby — L-U-H-B-Y

Rovner: Victoria.

Knight: @victoriaregisk

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-Z,” now in its third edition.

Having spent its entire first week choosing a speaker, the Republican-led U.S. House finally got down to legislative business, including passing two bills backed by anti-abortion groups. Neither is likely to become law, because they won’t pass the Senate nor be signed by President Joe Biden. But the move highlights how abortion is sure to remain a high-visibility issue in the nation’s capital.

Meanwhile, as open enrollment for the Affordable Care Act nears its Jan. 15 close, a record number of people have signed up, taking advantage of renewed subsidies and other help with medical costs.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times

@sangerkatz

https://www.nytimes.com/by/margot-sanger-katz

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The House now has a speaker after 15 rounds of full-chamber roll call votes. That paved the way for members to be sworn in, committee assignments to be made, and new committee chairs to be named. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Jason Smith (R-Mo.) will be taking the helm of major health committees.
• McMorris Rodgers will lead the House Energy and Commerce Committee; Smith will be the chairman of Ways and Means. Unlike McMorris Rodgers, Smith has little background in health issues and has mostly focused on tax issues in his public talking points. But Medicare is likely to be on the agenda, which will require the input of the chairs of both committees.
• One thing is certain: The new GOP-controlled House will do a lot of investigations. Republicans have already reconstituted a committee to investigate covid-19, although, unlike the Democrats’ panel, this one is likely to spend time trying to find the origin of the virus and track where federal dollars may have been misspent.
• The House this week began considering a series of abortion-related bills — “statement” or “messaging” bills — that are unlikely to see the light of day in the Senate. However, some in the caucus question the wisdom of holding votes on issues like these that could make their more moderate members more vulnerable. So far, bills have had mostly unanimous support from the GOP. Divisions are more likely to emerge on topics like a national abortion ban. Meanwhile, the Title X program, which pays for things like contraception and testing for sexually transmitted infections, is becoming a hot topic at the state level and in some lawsuits. A case in Texas would restrict contraception availability for minors through this program.
• It’s increasingly clear that abortion pills are going to become an even bigger part of the abortion debate. On one hand, the FDA has relaxed some of the risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) from the prescribing rules surrounding abortion pills. The FDA puts these extra restrictions or safeguards in place for certain drugs to add additional protection. Some advocates say these pills simply do not bring that level or risk.
• Anti-abortion groups are planning protests in early February at large pharmacies such as CVS and Walgreens to try to get them to walk back plans to distribute abortion pills in states where they are legal.
• A growing number of states are pressuring the Department of Health and Human Services to allow them to import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada — or, more accurately, importing Canada’s price controls. While this has long been a bipartisan issue, it has also long been controversial. Officials at the FDA remain concerned about breaking the closed supply chain between drugs being manufactured and delivered to approved U.S. buyers. The policy is popular, however, because it promises lower prices on at least some drugs.
• Also in the news from the FDA: The agency granted accelerated approval for Leqembi for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Leqembi is another expensive drug that appears to work, but also carries big risks. However, it is generally viewed as an improvement over the even more controversial Alzheimer’s drug Aduhelm. Still to be determined is whether Medicare — which provides insurance to most people with Alzheimer’s — will cover the drug.
• As the Affordable Care Act enrolls a record number of Americans, it is notable that repealing the law has not been mentioned as a priority for the new GOP majority in the House. Rather, the top health issue is likely to be how to reduce the price of Medicare and other health “entitlement” programs.

Plus, for extra credit, the panelists recommend their favorite health policy stories of the week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “Social Security Denies Disability Benefits Based on List With Jobs From 1977,” by Lisa Rein

Margot Sanger-Katz: Roll Call’s “Providers Say Medicare Advantage Hinders New Methadone Benefit,” by Jessie Hellmann

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times’ “Grant Wahl Was a Loving Husband. I Will Always Protect His Legacy.” By Céline Gounder

Sarah Karlin-Smith: KHN’s “Hospitals’ Use of Volunteer Staff Runs Risk of Skirting Labor Laws, Experts Say,” by Lauren Sausser

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• KHN’s “States Challenge Biden to Lower Drug Prices by Allowing Imports From Canada,” by Phil Galewitz
• Politico’s “Next Frontier in the Abortion Wars: Your Local CVS,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein and Lauren Gardner
• KFF’s “Millions of Uninsured People Can Get Free ACA Plans,” by Jared Ortaliza, Justin Lo, Gary Claxton, Krutika Amin, and Cynthia Cox

TRANSCRIPT

Click here for a transcript of the episode.

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: GOP House Opens With Abortion AgendaEpisode Number: 279Published: Dec. 12, 2023

Tamar Haspel: A lot of us want to eat better for the planet, but we’re not always sure how to do it. I’m Tamar Haspel.

Michael Grunwald: And I’m Michael Grunwald. And this is “Climavores,” a show about eating on a changing planet.

Haspel: We’re here to answer all kinds of questions. Questions like: Is fake meat really a good alternative to beef? Does local food actually matter?

Grunwald: You can follow us or subscribe on Stitcher, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.

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, Jan. 12, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Rovner: Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Margot Sanger-Katz: Hello.

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: So no interview this week, but lots of news, so we will get right to it. We’re going to start with the new Congress, where the House finally has a speaker after 15 rounds of full-chamber roll calls. Settling the speaker meant that the rest of the House could be sworn in and things like committee chairs elected. Two key health committees, Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, will both have new chairs, not just new because they’re Republican, but new because they have not chaired the committee previously. Energy and Commerce will be headed by a woman for the first time, Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, who’s had a longtime interest in health policy and was also in the Republican leadership. Over at Ways and Means, the new chairman is Jason Smith of Missouri, who I confess I had never heard of before this. Does anyone know anything about him? And does he have any interest in health care?

Ollstein: Most of what he said about chairing the committee has been about things other than health care. It’s been a lot on taxes, for instance. The new House majority is very “exorcised” about the IRS funding that the previous Congress approved and trying to get rid of that. But he has shown some interest in some telehealth provisions. And so I think also I’m sure we’re going to discuss some interest in, shall we say, revisiting Medicare’s benefits and funding …

Rovner: Yeah, we’re going to get to that next.

Ollstein: So there could be some things, but it doesn’t seem that he’s been a big health care guy or will be a big health care guy going forward.

Rovner: In the olden days, when I started covering this, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee frequently did not have either an interest or an expertise in health care. But the chairman of the Ways and Means health subcommittee did. That’s where pretty much everything came from. Do we know yet who is going to chair the Ways and Means health subcommittee …? We do not. So we’ll wait to see that. But yes …. even though I read Chairman Smith’s little introduction about what he’s interested in — and I know he mentioned rural health — but he did not anywhere mention Medicare. And of course, the Ways and Means Committee has jurisdiction over most of Medicare in the House. It is going to come up, as far as we can tell, right?

Sanger-Katz: One imagines so because some of the promises that leadership has made to its members to think about how to balance the budget in the long term, to consider entitlement reform, whatever that may mean. And, you know, Medicare is where the money is. So you would think that the Ways and Means Committee would want to be looking seriously at how to reform the program, if that’s the interest of leadership on this policy area.

Rovner: And they’ve already said that they want to tie any debt ceiling vote, which [is] one of those things that Congress absolutely has to do to reforms, quote-unquote, of the Medicare and Social Security programs. Because, again, as Margot said, that’s where the money goes. So we expect to see Medicare as an issue, regardless of what the Ways and Means Committee does, right?

Ollstein: That’s right. There were a lot of calls for Democrats to address the debt ceiling issue during their final months in power. They did not do so. That means that it’s going to be a big, messy fight this year. One of the biggest things to watch. This is an instance where the Republican House majority will be able to flex its muscles even though they don’t have the Senate and White House, because they can trigger a budget standoff that puts the faith and credit of the country in jeopardy and demand concessions, including cuts to Medicare. So we’ll see how that goes.

Rovner: Although I will say, Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii was on Twitter, and he didn’t ask me anything much to the horror of his communications staff. But one of the questions that somebody asked him was, “Why didn’t you do the debt ceiling?” And he just said: We didn’t have the votes. So that at least answers the question of why didn’t they take care of this before the Republicans took the majority back? Well, one thing we do know is going to happen is that the new Republican-controlled House is going to do a lot of investigations. Indeed, one of the first orders of business in the new Congress was the re-establishment of a committee on the covid pandemic with a new focus on investigating the origins of the virus and the government’s response to it. What are we expecting out of that?

Karlin-Smith: As you said, Julie, I think two of the things is, one, they’re going to do more investigation into the origin of the virus. Republicans have pushed the potential theory that this was borne out of a lab in China, not necessarily something more naturally occurring. And I think a lot of scientists have said this theory has been fairly close to disproven and find that the focus on it distracts from really dealing with the current pandemic. But I think we should expect a lot of that. And that will include, I think, a lot of relitigation of Anthony Fauci and his particular role in the NIH [National Institutes of Health] and funding different types of research on viruses, both in the U.S. and abroad. The second thing I think they’re going to look very closely at is how the U.S. has spent the covid funding that Congress has doled out and appropriated. That’s certainly a lot of money. And I think, again, oversight is always probably … it’s a good thing to see if Congress gives money, are we spending it? … Does it actually get to where it needs to go? Does it go to where it’s supposed to go? I think that … in general, I think most people think that’s a good thing. Sometimes what ends up happening is it gets taken a little bit to …  this disingenuous step forward in Washington, where everything gets questioned or they pick on jurisdictions for not spending the money fast enough when it’s just not realistic. So you have to read between the lines really carefully when you’re looking at some of the findings from that type of work. Because sometimes, again, when you give a state $1,000,000 to do something, they’re not often able to make that change in two months.

Rovner: And then if they do, they get criticized for spending it on the wrong thing, so …

Karlin-Smith: Right.

Sanger-Katz: But I will say, speaking as a journalist, not as a congressional investigator, I do think that the covid funding is really ripe for a lot of investigation. There’s already been very good reporting that a lot of the small-business programs were broadly defrauded. I think there was a real emphasis by Congress and — in a bipartisan way, Republicans obviously voted for these bills as well. But I think there was a real emphasis on just getting money out the door. People were so scared of a catastrophic economic collapse that, unlike a lot of programs that Congress designs that fund various things, there weren’t a lot of initial safeguards, there wasn’t a lot of process or administrative burden associated with getting money. And so that means it really is valuable to look and see where did it go, who may have defrauded the program, what are ways that in the next crisis it might be possible to do these kinds of programs in a way that is more efficient. You know, it occurs to me that in addition to the small-business money, hospitals got a whole lot of money as part of these programs. And again, there’s been some journalism about this, but I do think I’m all for more oversight, trying to learn some real lessons. I agree with Sarah that there is probably some of this that’s going to veer into the disingenuous and kind of “gotcha.” But there may be some useful and interesting findings as a result of this process as well.

Rovner: And as we saw with the Jan. 6 committee, Congress has powers that journalists don’t. As we know, the Justice Department has powers that Congress doesn’t. But Congress has pretty good investigatory powers. They can subpoena things when they need to. So, yes, I imagine we’re going to learn something about the fate of all of those dollars that went out the door.

Ollstein: Just to be fair, Republicans have sort of claimed that the Democrat-led effort to investigate covid didn’t have any financial accountability aspect. That’s not true. It did. They really scrutinized a lot of government contracts — like no-bid government contracts that funneled lots and lots of money to things that did not pan out or help anybody. There has been some of that already. But I agree that there’s definitely more to look at.

Rovner: And there … obviously, there was a Republican and a Democratic administration handling the covid pandemic. So one presumes there are things to investigate on both sides. Well, even while the House committees are gearing up, Republicans are bringing “statement” bills to the floor, bills that we know the Senate won’t take up and the president won’t sign. And despite the fact that abortion rights drove a lot of the midterm elections in the other direction, two of the first bills brought to the floor by the new Republican majority seek to do the bidding of anti-abortion groups. This, apparently, making Republican moderates, particularly those in swing districts, not so happy. Alice, are we looking at pretty much the same split in the Republicans in the House as in a lot of states — the people who think that the Republicans didn’t do well because they should have done more and people who think the Republicans didn’t do well because they should have done less?

Ollstein: Yeah, absolutely. And there’s a split on how to talk about it or whether to talk about it as well. It’s not just the actions, it’s the messaging in addition. And so, yes, there are some in the House who are, like, why are we doing this? Why are we taking these votes that have no chance of becoming law? It just puts our members from swing districts in a more vulnerable position. The things they voted on so far this week have pretty unanimous support on the Republican side, I would say. I think where you could start to see some bigger divides are when they get into votes on an actual national abortion restriction that would put a gestational limit on the procedure, or something like that, which absolutely some members want to do and want to take a vote on. I think that’s where you could start to see some Republicans being, like, wait, wait, wait, wait, why are we doing this? But the things so far are, like you said, they’re “messaging” bills, but they’re ones that have pretty broad support on the conservative side.

Rovner: And we should mention, I mean, one of them was just a sense of Congress that, you know, that bombing pregnancy crisis centers is bad. Or that violence against pregnancy centers …

Sanger-Katz: I’m not going to give credit for this correctly, but I saw a tweet on this topic last week when the list of demands and the list of these bills that we’re going to get a vote on was released where someone asked, Oh, did D-Triple-C [the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] co-author this list? Where I do think there is an interesting tension, as Alice said, where the particular message bills that the most conservative members of the House Republican caucus want to vote on are those issues where we see in public opinion polling, where we see in the last election that the majority of Americans are not really with those most conservative Republicans. And I think a lot of moderate Republicans would just prefer not to vote on those issues, particularly because they know that they can’t make them policy. And we were talking about changes to Medicare and Social Security, and I think that also falls very much in that category where there might be a situation in which if Republicans really thought that they could reform these programs, maybe they would want to take the political risk, because I do think it’s an important long-term goal of many Republicans. But I think there’s also a frustration, you know, why would we take all these votes on something that is generally unpopular? Everyone knows that both Social Security and Medicare are really, really popular programs and people are very wary of changes to them. There is a political risk in taking a bunch of votes saying that you want to pull money out of those programs or change them structurally when you can’t even achieve it.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, speaking of that, during Wednesday’s abortion debate on the House floor, Republican moderate Nancy Mace of South Carolina kept saying to any cable outlet that would put a microphone in front of her that Congress should be making birth control more widely available instead of voting on abortion. But we are also seeing the first shots fired in an effort to restrict birth control. Well, last month, a Trump-appointed judge ruled that the Title X family planning program is illegally providing contraception to minors. Now, this is a fight that dates back to even before I started covering it. It was called “the Squeal Rule” in the early 1980s, an effort by the Reagan administration to require parental involvement before teens could use Title X family planning services. It was eventually struck down in federal court, but now it’s back. Is this where we’re headed?

Ollstein: I think it’s really important to watch things in law and policy that are just directed at minors because inevitably it does not stop there. Like, that’s sort of the testing ground. It’s where people are more comfortable with more restrictions and more hoops to jump through. But as we’ve seen with gender-affirming care, it doesn’t stop there. What’s tested out as a policy for minors is inevitably proposed for adults as well, and so …

Sanger-Katz: What’s the adult version of this, Alice? Like who? Like spousal consent?

Rovner: Yes, there had been — I was just going to say — not so much in contraception, although originally it was, but also on abortion that, yeah, if there’s a partner that the partner would have to consent.

Ollstein: But there’s also been spousal consent stuff for more permanent … getting your tubes tied, those kinds of things. That’s been a debate as well. And, I mean, in the abortion space we’ve seen this for, in terms of like traveling across state lines for an abortion. That’s been a restriction for minors that’s also been proposed for adults. So it’s just this phase we should absolutely watch — as well as Title X program continues to be a space for proposed restrictions. It’s a lever that they’re able to hold because it does have federal funding and it does have constraints that other pots of money don’t have.

Rovner: My favorite piece of trivia is that the Title X program has not been reauthorized since 1984 because Congress has never been able to find the votes. You know, when the Democrats were in charge and wanted to do it, the Republicans would have all of these amendments that the Democrats probably couldn’t fight off. The Republicans wanted to do it and put all these stringent rules that the Democrats wouldn’t have. So, literally, this program has been … it gets funded every year, but it’s been marching along for now several decades without Congress having formally reauthorized it.

Ollstein: Yeah, that’s why you keep seeing different presidential administrations trying to put their stamp on it through rulemaking, which, of course, can be rolled back by the subsequent president, as we’ve seen with [Donald] Trump and [Joe] Biden. And so it just keeps going back and forth. And these clinics that are out there getting this funding, which, again, can’t be used for abortion, for contraception, STD testing, fertility stuff, all kinds of stuff, but not abortion. But they keep having to comply with these wildly different rules. It’s really difficult.

Rovner: Yeah, it is. All right. Well, last week we talked about the Biden administration’s effort to make abortion pills more available through both pharmacies and the mail. On the one hand, some abortion rights advocates say that the FDA is still overregulating the abortion pill by requiring extra hoops for both pharmacies and doctors to jump through in order to offer or write prescriptions for a medication that’s proved safe and effective over two decades. On the other hand, we now have the specter of abortion opponents protesting at CVSes or Walgreens near you. And Alice, they’re already planning to do that, right?

Ollstein: Yeah, that’s right. They would have done it sooner, but they didn’t want to step on the March for Life, which is coming up in a couple of weeks. And so they’re planning these protests at CVS and Walgreens around the country for early February, trying to pressure the company to walk back its announcement that they will participate in the distribution of abortion pills in states where they remain legal, which is, by our count, currently 18 can’t do this either because abortion is banned entirely or because there are laws specifically restricting how people get the pills.

Rovner: Sarah, I want you to talk about some of these extra hoops that have to be jumped through because a lot of people think it’s just for this pill and it’s not. This is something that the FDA has for any drug that’s potentially abusable, right?

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I wouldn’t say abusable is the right word, but basically people call this a REMS. It stands for risk evaluation and mitigation strategy. And it’s actually an authority Congress gave the FDA to — we use this term “safe and effective,” but we know all drugs, even when we say that “safe” term, will come with risks. And the idea here is that when the benefit-risk balance would be … so that it would be … FDA might say, OK, this is actually too risky to approve. However, we think we could make it kind of safe enough if we put in a little extra safeguards instead of just letting it go out there. Here’s a drug, doctors, you can prescribe it, follow the normal pathway, which is that the federal government, or at least the FDA, doesn’t really have a lot of say in exactly how the practice of medicine works. That’s left up to states. And, you know, doctors individually. They implement other practices to help ensure that safety balance is there. So one famous example is Accutane, which is an acne drug. It’s incredibly harmful to a developing fetus and birth defects. So women of pregnancy, bearing age are usually required to take regular pregnancy tests and so forth and monitor the status of that. And you’re not supposed to use the drug while pregnant because of the incredible harm you do to a baby. So there’s everything from things like that to just simply more written literature might be provided for certain drugs. Sometimes in the cases of the abortion pill, you know, who could actually dispense it and when was restricted. Sometimes there are particular sorts of trainings doctors have to take to get that extra authority to prescribe the drug. And again, the idea is that just to provide a little extra safeguard. Again, the controversy over the years with this pill is that people feel like it doesn’t meet that standard to have a REMS, that it can be safe and effective through our normal prescribing systems. Actually, Stat this week had an interesting interview with Jane Henney, who was the FDA commissioner when they first approved this drug. And she …

Rovner: Yeah, in the year 2000.

Karlin-Smith: Right. Which is actually …

Rovner: Right at the end of the Clinton administration.

Karlin-Smith: Actually predates this formal REMS authority. But there were others, different authorities that then evolved into REMS. But she said she thought that a lot of these restrictions would be gone by now and that what, at the time, what they were waiting for was more U.S.-specific experience with the drug, because what they were basing the original approval on was a lot of use of the drug in France, which had such a different health system than the U.S., they were a little bit uncomfortable, I guess, opening the floodgates in a way. So I thought that was an interesting historical point that came out this week.

Rovner: But clearly, Alice, I mean, this is going to be the next big fight in abortion, right, is trying to restrict the abortion pill?

Ollstein: Absolutely. I’ve been writing about this since before Roe v. Wade was overturned. The pills were already becoming one of the most popular and now are the most popular way to terminate a pregnancy in the U.S., which makes sense. You can take them in the comfort of your home with the people that you want to be with you, not in a scary medical environment. It’s also a lot cheaper than having a surgical procedure. So but then, of course, with the pandemic, people started using them even more because it was more dangerous to go to a clinical setting. And so this has been a big focus of both sides of this fight for a long time: either how to increase access to the pills or restrict them. Also, now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, the pills and the ability to order them online from overseas in this legal gray area, that’s been a major way people have been getting around state bans, and the anti-abortion groups know that. And so they want to look at any way they can to crack down on this. And so with the Biden administration opening up a new potential pathway with these local retail pharmacies, they’re of course going to try to crack down on that as well.

Karlin-Smith: I mean, we talked about this before in the podcast, but I think this issue of federal preemption, if it gets teed up, is going to be a big thing that’s beyond just abortion, in terms of when does FDA’s approval of a drug trump state regulations around how it’s going to be used? And, you know, I feel like some people have not been satisfied on the … who want more access to abortion drugs in terms of how FDA has handled the rollback of the REMS. But you also have to wonder if they’re operating in this setting where, again, if you push things too far and you get a legal challenge, given how our courts are, right? And how politically it can backfire. And so it’s a complicated balance there.

Rovner: Well, speaking of drugs that are in gray areas that people order online, my KHN colleague Phil Galewitz reports that four states — Florida, Colorado, New Hampshire, and New Mexico — are now pressuring the Biden administration to allow them to import prescription drugs from Canada in an effort to reduce the cost of drugs for their residents. Now, despite the fact that this has been and remains a very bipartisan ask, the FDA, under both Republican and Democratic commissioners, has strongly objected to it over the years. Somebody remind us why this is so controversial.

Karlin-Smith: I think the big thing FDA has objected to is that when you allow importation in the way states have often asked for it, you basically often give up the supply chain oversight that we have in the U.S. that ensures people are not getting drugs that are counterfeit and have somehow been tampered with as they’ve gotten through the supply chain. And so, actually, I was refreshing my memory, and I can’t believe how long ago it is. When the Trump administration first became the first administration to say, Oh, actually, OK, we are going to agree that we think this could be come safely. Then they put out regulations that tried to … basically like made it so that to do importation, you would almost have to mimic the same supply-chain safety measures we already have for the FDA. So it became this double-edged sword of, sure, you can do the importation, but you’re going to have to jump to this level of hurdles that then makes it unusable. And so I think that’s the key barrier here, is that can a state actually propose a program that would get sign-off? And I think it’s not really surprising to me that the Trump team tried to thread the needle in that way of giving people the win of saying, Oh, we’ll allow it without actually making it feasible.

Sanger-Katz: I think it also highlights what a weird ask this is in some ways because what the states are looking to do is they are not looking to import drugs from other countries because they think that other countries have better manufacturing, have better safety protocols, have different drugs. They just want to import the lower prices that other countries pay for the same drugs. And so this is, in some ways, a very cludgy workaround that the states are basically asking for price regulation of drugs. But that obviously is a very difficult political act. So instead they’re saying, well, can we just import the prices that some other country has negotiated. And then it raises all these other issues about, Well, you know, there is like a reason why, in general, the United States has regulatory control over the drug supply.

Rovner: Also, Canada doesn’t have enough drugs to serve all of these states. I mean, that’s the thing that I’ve never managed to get over. And, in fact, Canada has said that they’re not anxious to do this because they don’t have enough drugs to serve both Canada and the United States. I mean, it also seems just literally impractical.

Sanger-Katz: I mean, we are seeing, of course, like in the Inflation Reduction Act, there were new measures that would allow Medicare, in particular, to start negotiating for lower prices for certain drugs. Obviously, that policy has a fair number of limitations, including that it’s only for Medicare, it’s only for certain drugs, and it’s not going to be instant. But while we did get some new timeline from the Biden administration this week, and it looks like that policy is going to start rolling out. So I think states are asking for this now because they want to import prices from other countries. But also, for the first time, Medicare, or the federal government is starting to take on drug prices directly. And we’re going to see how that looks relatively soon.

Rovner: Yes, this ship turns very slowly, but it does seem to be turning a little bit. Well, as we previewed last week, the FDA has approved another controversial Alzheimer’s disease drug, Leqembi. I think that’s how you say it, which has a Q without a U. Sarah, you’ve been following this. Are we headed down potentially the same road we traveled with Aduhelm? It feels kind of familiar. It’s a drug that we think works, but we don’t really know, and it has some big risks and will be expensive.

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I mean, similar, but slightly different. And perhaps the analogy that things slowly make their way in a different direction is also right here. This drug, I think most people see it as an improvement on Aduhelm because it has, in one major clinical trial, shown some benefit on people’s cognitive decline slowing a bit. However, the big debate there is that … how meaningful the change that was seen in the trial is. Is it really going to be meaningful in people’s lives and is that worth the price? The company is … actually a similar company is involved here, but they priced it quite a bit lower than the original Aduhelm price, even lower than the price of Aduhelm now. It’s still seen as on the very high end of what a lot of cost-effective watchdogs say is a fair price. And as of right now, CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] or Medicare is not going to be covering it at all because right now the drug only has what’s known as an accelerated approval. So we’re going to, over the next probably less than a year, in about nine months or so, FDA will have to weigh in on whether it gives the drug a full formal approval. And at that point, we’ll see if Medicare also gives the sign-off that they think this drug might actually be effective for people and are willing to pay for it. I think my bottom line on this drug is, you know, it provides some hope and some improvement for people, but it looks like to be a small clinical benefit for a big trade-off in risks. So I think as more data comes out over time, we’ll see again if that benefit-risk trade-off for most people falls on the right side of the coin.

Rovner: And we’ll watch this whole process go forward again. All right. Finally this week, but not least, there’s also news on the health insurance coverage front. With the end of open enrollment for the Affordable Care Act coverage rapidly approaching in most states, by Jan. 15, officials at the Department of Health and Human Services this week reported that enrollment is already up 13% from last year to almost 16 million people, including about 3.1 million people who are new enrollees. In the meantime, though, my colleagues over the firewall at KFF report that some 5 million more uninsured Americans are actually eligible for free health care coverage under the ACA. It feels ironic because this is not the first year of expanded subsidies and there’s been relatively little media coverage of open enrollment. Is it just that it takes time for knowledge of these offers to trickle down to people? Or that the Biden administration put a lot more effort into outreach this year?

Sanger-Katz: I think it’s all of the above. I think for the first few years of the Obamacare program, there were a lot of complaints that this insurance really wasn’t affordable enough for people. And, obviously, that’s why Congress, first in part of the pandemic stimulus bill and now again in the Inflation Reduction Act, really jacked up the subsidies and made the plans cheaper and, in many cases, have more wraparound benefits so that low-income people could get insurance that was either free or relatively low-premium and also didn’t ask them to pay a lot out-of-pocket for their own care. And we can see also that the Biden administration did a lot of outreach. I mean, it’s definitely the case that they both, through Congress, made the plans cheaper and also, through various administrative actions, made the plans more widely publicized. And I just want to highlight, I think last year was the record year for Obamacare enrollment. And now we’re seeing this huge increase on top of a record year. So these things seem to matter. I think the affordability of plans, the availability of free plans for a lot of uninsured Americans is very appealing. And yet the people who are uninsured and poor, I think, are difficult to reach. There is a lot of long-standing opposition to Obamacare. There are a lot of places where there are a lot of uninsured Americans, where there’s not particularly effective and robust outreach. People don’t know how to find these things, how to sign up. And it is really administratively complex to sign up for these plans. I mean, I don’t know how many of our listeners have tried to do it. It’s not impossible. It is on the internet. You know, anyone can do it. And you don’t have to have someone holding your hand. But I think in many cases you probably do want someone holding your hand if it’s your first time doing it. There are, in many markets, lots of choices. It’s confusing. It’s hard to know what the best option is, sometimes it’s a little bit hard to figure out what it’s going to cost you until you enter in a lot of information about your income. And you might also be scared that if you’re not sure or you put something in wrong, you could get in trouble. So I think this is just an ongoing challenge of getting all these people who are now eligible for these really low-cost plans to actually interact with the system and get insurance.

Rovner: One thing I guess bears mentioning is that with the Republicans just, you know, plan to do all of these things like try to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act because they don’t like the drug price provisions … [but] they are not talking about repealing the Affordable Care Act anymore, right? Have we finally come to the end of that particular fight?

Sanger-Katz: It sure looks that way.

Ollstein: Yeah. The right the writing has been on the wall in terms of the lack of that talk on the campaign trail for a few years now. I was joking with some colleagues that, you know, the “repeal Obamacare” is tired; the “repeal the drug price negotiation provisions” is wired. That’s the new talking point, although that’s not going to happen either, obviously, because of the control of the Senate and because of how insanely expensive it would be to repeal that. But the Republicans definitely have moved on to other targets.

Sanger-Katz: Although I will say, you know, once again, the fact that House leadership has committed to proposing cuts to health entitlement programs, the fact that they have committed to proposing a budget that balances in 10 years means that, I think, it will be extremely difficult for them to avoid talking about particular cuts or changes to Affordable Care Act programs. You know, again, it’s just like this is where the dollars are. They can take a lot of dollars out of Medicare, that is very politically unpopular. They can take some dollars out of Medicaid, you know, the largest expansion of which is part of ACA. They can take money out of these subsidies, which, you know, have been supercharged in recent years beyond even what Congress initially passed in 2010. And I do think, as Alice said, you know, this is not a popular talking point. I don’t think Republicans, by and large, want to be talking about repealing Obamacare anymore. And yet I think they are backed into this corner where they’re going to have to make and propose specific modifications and cuts to these programs in order to achieve these high-level philosophical goals that they’ve signed up for. And so I think it will be interesting to see what does it look like, maybe they’re not going to call it Obamacare repeal anymore, but they might still be sucking $1,000,000,000,000 out of Medicaid, like some of the Trump administration budgets did.

Rovner: Yeah. And it’s important to mention, again, I mean, the Republicans talk about all these things they’re going to do and people are thinking, Oh, my God, if they vote for this balanced budget, in 10 years it’s going to happen. They can’t do most of these things without the Senate and/or the president unless they have two-thirds to override, which they don’t. The one place that we do think they could exercise some leverage, obviously, is this debt ceiling vote where the Congress has to vote to raise the debt ceiling or the U.S. will default on things that it has already bought but not paid for — basically paying the credit card bill. And that, certainly, they’re going to try to make some entitlement changes. But all of these other things that they say they’re, quote-unquote, “going to do,” they’re mostly just quote-unquote, “making political statements,” right?

Sanger-Katz: But they’re going to have to talk about them. They’re going to have to write things down. They’re going to have to have specific dollars attached to this. I do think that it will be politically salient and that it will create some visibility into, like, well, how do you balance the budget in 10 years? What does entitlement reform look like? And they’re not saying Obamacare repeal anymore and they don’t want to, they understand that they don’t want to. And yet I think they’re going to be in this position where they’re going to effectively have to lay out something that looks like Obamacare repeal, something that looks like Social Security reform, something that looks like big changes to Medicare. And we will have a political debate about that because Democrats are just salivating to have those conversations. I think they feel like that is very strong political ground on them. They think that voters trust them to protect those very popular programs if they’re under assault. And, you know, which is very similar to the political dynamic we saw when Republicans were really trying in earnest, when they had full control of government and wanted to repeal Obamacare.

Rovner: Yes. And I would say, as we absolutely saw in 2017, when they failed to repeal it, Republicans very much agree on their goals, but they very much disagree on how to get there. There is no unified Republican plan for either reforming, you know, the Affordable Care Act or Medicare or Medicaid, I mean, except for basically cutting money out of it. So I will be interested, as Margot says, to see what they actually put down on paper.

Sanger-Katz: And, sorry, just one more thing on this point, which is, again, I think that the kinds of show votes that the Republican House leadership is going to have to put on these issues are probably not going to be particularly politically productive and may be politically damaging to them. But I do think, setting that aside for the moment, I do think we are entering in an environment of much higher interest rates, of really more accelerating federal debt. You know, there are a lot of conditions right now that are potentially ripe for thinking about government spending and particularly thinking about these big categories of government spending that are our federal health care programs. I think the last few years there’s been this sense that, you know, debt is free and the deficit doesn’t matter. And I think inflation is high, interest rates are rising. I do think that we’re in a moment where there may be a greater sense of a need to confront this problem. And I’m interested in what that conversation looks like, which may be a little bit different than the kind of highly ideological conversation that we’re going to see in the very near term.

Rovner: I was going to say that that would require actually having substantive talks about what might work, which we don’t know is going to happen, but we can cross our fingers and hope. All right. That is the news for this week. Now it is time for our extra-credit segment where we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. 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: Sure. I took a look at a story by Kaiser Health News’ Lauren Sausser: “Hospitals’ Use of Volunteer Staff Runs Risk of Skirting Labor Laws, Experts Say.” I thought this was a fascinating story about hospitals’ reliance on volunteers, not for the types of activities I usually associate hospital volunteers with, which would be …

Rovner: Like candy stripers.

Karlin-Smith: Right. Like light … I don’t know, “light” is not the right word, but, you know, visiting people, comforting them in some way, providing added benefit of sorts. And this is really people that are being asked to do medical care and the basics, some of the basic care you need when you are in a hospital. And I think her story cites about $5 billion maybe in the U.S. of free labor through these types of volunteers. And the question becomes, you know, is this violating labor laws? And should these people be getting paid for the work, or should they … are they basically, because they’re using volunteers, taking money and job opportunities away from other people? And I thought it was a fascinating story just because I had no idea of all of this, you know, volunteer labor was being used and the impacts on these hospitals during the pandemic, when they couldn’t have volunteers. And just, I think, important to think about, too, how this impacts the quality of care as well people receive.

Rovner: Hospitals are very clever. Margot.

Sanger-Katz: I wanted to recommend an article from Jessie Hellman at Roll Call called “Providers Say Medicare Advantage Hinders New Methadone Benefit.” And I’ve been doing a lot of reporting on the Medicare Advantage program lately. And so I was a little bit jealous of this story. Congress just recently required Medicare to pay for methadone. You know, a very evidence-based treatment for opioid addiction that it hadn’t been covering before. And what this article found is that these Medicare Advantage plans, or private competitors to the government Medicare program, have been enacting a lot of roadblocks that make it hard for people to get this treatment. So they technically cover it, but they require often what’s called prior authorization, where you have to … doctors and others have to jump through a lot of hoops to prove that the person really needs it. And when I saw this article, I put out a bat signal on my Twitter and I said, Can anyone think of the medical reason why you would want to have … restrict access to methadone treatment? And, you know, this is just a Twitter poll, but no one could come up with the reason. They could think of lots of reasons why the insurance company might not want to cover it, because it’s expensive, because patients who have opioid addiction probably are pretty expensive in general. And so, you know, this could be a way to avoid paying for a complex treatment or a way to discourage patients who have complex health care needs from choosing a Medicare Advantage plan. Anyway, so just a good story and just, you know, another illustration of, you know, even after Congress does something like add a new benefit, there’s always value in doing oversight to see how is that actually working in the real world and is it giving patients the care that was intended?

Rovner: Yes. And we will be talking, I think, much more about Medicare Advantage this year. Alice.

Ollstein: So I have a very sad piece to recommend. It is an op-ed by Céline Gounder, who is a public health expert that we all know well, as well as the widow of Grant Wahl, the soccer journalist who died covering the World Cup. And she wrote about how her husband’s death has been co-opted by anti-vax conspiracy theorists who are trying to draw some connection to what happened to him and being vaccinated for covid. But she really smartly walks through the misinformation playbook because it is a very sort of predictable playbook with very predictable points and, you know, dismantles them one by one. And I think it’s really helpful for the inevitable next time we see this come up to be prepared in advance and be able to refute those points. Very tragic but very helpful thing to know.

Rovner: Yeah. Céline is our colleague now at KHN, in addition to everything else that she does, and I can just say to these trolls: Don’t mess with Céline. It really was a very good piece. Well, my extra credit this week is from The Washington Post, and it’s a great story that ran in the dead week between Christmas and New Year’s. So I … gave it an extra week. It’s called “Social Security Denies Disability Benefits Based on List With Jobs From 1977,” by Lisa Rein. And while I’ve known for a long time that the Social Security disability program has a multiyear backlog, one thing I didn’t know until I read this story is that a lot of otherwise likely eligible people get their benefits denied because they could theoretically do jobs that largely no longer exist. Among the jobs the government says people who are disabled might be able to do are nuts sorter, dowel inspector, or egg processor. That’s because the last time the labor market data used to determine if a disabled person might be able to do a job was last updated 45 years ago. The agency has been working since 2012 to update its listing of jobs that could be done by sedentary individuals. But somehow the new directory of jobs has not made it into use yet. Meanwhile, thousands of people deserving of disability benefits are being steered to jobs that are now largely automated, offshored, or otherwise obsolete, something that clearly needs to be fixed.

OK, that is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you could subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you’ve 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 still at Twitter for now: @jrovner. Sarah?

Karlin-Smith: I’m @SarahKarlin

Rovner: Margot?

Sanger-Katz: @sangerkatz

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. In the meantime, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio Producer

Stephanie Stapleton
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-Z,” now in its third edition.

The year-end government spending bill includes a lot of changes to federal health programs, including changes to Medicare payments and some structure for states to begin to disenroll people on Medicaid whose eligibility has been maintained through the pandemic.

Separately, the Biden administration took several steps to expand the availability of the abortion pill, which in combination with another drug can end a pregnancy within about 10 weeks of gestation. Anti-abortion forces have launched their own campaign to limit the reach of the abortion pill.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico, and Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Rachel Roubein
The Washington Post

@rachel_roubein

Read Rachel's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Congress ended the year by passing a nearly $1.7 trillion government spending package. The legislation included smaller-than-scheduled cuts to Medicare payments for physicians, extended telehealth flexibilities, and funding boosts for programs like the Indian Health Service and the federal 988 mental health hotline.
• But lawmakers left out many priorities, such as more money in response to the covid-19 emergency, and included a change to Medicaid eligibility that could result in millions of Americans losing their health insurance.
• The Biden administration took perhaps its biggest stand on abortion rights since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, with the FDA announcing that retail pharmacies will be permitted to dispense abortion pills for the first time, and the Justice Department confirming that it is legal to send the pills through the U.S. Postal Service.
• A new congressional report on Aduhelm, the controversial Alzheimer’s drug, reveals its manufacturer, Biogen, knew the impact its pricing could have on the Medicare program — and priced it high anyway. The report also raises big questions about the FDA’s decision-making in approving the drug and what some officials were willing to do to make it happen.
• And in price transparency news, insurers are now required to provide patients with cost-estimating tools designed to make more than 500 nonemergency services “shoppable.” But it is unclear whether insurance companies are prepared to help consumers access and use that information.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Mark Kreidler, who wrote the latest NPR-KHN “Bill of the Month” feature, about two patients with the same name and a mistaken bill. 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 recommend their favorite health policy stories of the week they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “The F.D.A. Now Says It Plainly: Morning-After Pills Are Not Abortion Pills,” by Pam Belluck

Joanne Kenen: Politico Magazine’s “Racist Doctors and Organ Thieves: Why So Many Black People Distrust the Health Care System,” by Joanne Kenen and Elaine Batchlor

Rachel Cohrs: The New York Times’ “‘Major Trustee, Please Prioritize’: How NYU’s E.R. Favors the Rich,” by Sarah Kliff and Jessica Silver-Greenberg

Rachel Roubien: KHN’s “Hundreds of Hospitals Sue Patients or Threaten Their Credit, a KHN Investigation Finds. Does Yours?” by Noam N. Levey

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

Stat’s “‘Rife With Irregularities’: Congressional Investigation Reveals FDA’s Approval of Aduhelm Marked by Secret Discussions, Breaches of Protocol,” by Rachel Cohrs

KHN’s “Want a Clue on Health Care Costs in Advance? New Tools Take a Crack at it,” by Julie Appleby

Stat’s “Congress Reaches Major Health Policy Deal on Medicare, Medicaid, and Pandemic Preparedness,” by Rachel Cohrs and Sarah Owermohle

USA Today’s “Half of Ambulance Rides Yield Surprise Medical Bills. What’s Being Done to Protect People?” by Ken Alltucker

Click to expand

Episode Transcript

Julie Rovner: Hello, Happy New Year, 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, Jan. 5, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico. 

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. Welcome back. 

Rovner: Rachel Cohrs of Stat News. 

Rachel Cohrs: Hi, Julie. 

Rovner: And we welcome to the podcast panel this week Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post. 

Rachel Roubein: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So I plan to call you guys “Rachel C.” and “Rachel R.” since I have you both today. Later in this episode, we’ll have my “Bill of the Month” interview with Mark Kreidler. This month’s patient got a bill for care that was actually delivered to someone else and eventually had that bill sent to collections. We will try to sort this all out in far less time than it took her. But first, the news. And there’s plenty with what happened over the break. So we’re going to start with the bill that ended the 117th Congress. That huge omnibus spending bill that included all 12 of the annual appropriations that fund much of the government through the end of the fiscal year. That bill also served as a vehicle for a lot of other bills, including an array of health legislation. Rachel C., why don’t you start us off with what the bill did for Medicare and Medicaid? Both of which are pretty significant. 

Cohrs: Sure. For Medicare, I think, doctors had been worried that they were going to see pay cuts at the end of the year, and they had been asking Congress to make sure they were budget-neutral there. Congress didn’t quite meet their demands all the way. They blunted the effect of the cuts. So a little bit of cuts will go into effect this year, and then those cuts will increase a little bit next year as well. So it’s some of what they asked for, not all of it. On Medicaid, there was a really big change to what we call in D.C. the redetermination process. Basically, to get extra money from the federal government during the pandemic, states had to agree not to kick people off Medicaid — even if they were no longer eligible. But starting in April, states are going to be able to start kicking people off Medicaid if they are no longer eligible. And there’s a phase-out of that extra money that states were getting to treat these people as well.  

Rovner: This has been the big concern about the public health emergency and why everybody’s cared whether or not when it ends, because when it ended, states were going to start being able to basically kick off the program people who weren’t eligible. And there was a whole lot of concern about how they would do it and how long it would take. And this basically sets up a process, right? 

Cohrs: Right. It provides a lot more certainty. And states and CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] have been preparing for this for months. There’s resources. But I think the ultimate question is whether these people are going to transition from Medicaid onto another form of coverage or whether there’s going to become uninsured. And, I think KFF estimates about … between maybe 5 million and 14 million people will lose Medicaid coverage. And if there’s not a smooth transition, that could have really big implications for coverage. So those were the two big things. There were many other smaller policies that this paid for, though, because it saved money based on all the congressional budget magic that CBO [the Congressional Budget Office] uses. So I think there’s more protections for children on Medicaid as well. It extends CHIP [the Children’s Health Insurance Program] until 2029, makes permanent maternal health programs. So there were improvements that Congress decided to make to the Medicaid program with this money. But I think it does … it’s a little bit of a tighter timeline than some people were expecting.  

Rovner: They basically are, to some extent, divorcing the Medicaid unwinding from the end of the public health emergency, which people expect will be sometime this year. But we’ve expected that public health emergency to end for a while. Joanne, you want to add something. 

Kenen: And I think this is the time to point out, yet again, they’ll probably be a certain amount of chaos and disruption. But most people in most states who are leaving this enhanced Medicaid will in fact be eligible for Affordable Care Act coverage with good subsidies, if they’re low-income. But we still have the Medicaid gap, so there are about a dozen states — it might be down to 11 now — but there are about a dozen, 11 or 12 states where people who won’t have enhanced Medicaid won’t have anything. 

Rovner: Yeah. 

Kenen: And that’s just political reality. 

Rovner: That was something that the Democratic Congress tried very hard to fix last year and it ended up on the cutting-room floor. It didn’t make it into the Inflation Reduction Act … 

Kenen: Yes, it was in Build Back Better. It was sent … 

Rovner: Right. It was in Build Back Better and it didn’t pass.  

Kenen: An attempt to fix it was in Build Back Better and it did not make it into the final what did pass, which was the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. 

Rovner: And there were a bunch of things that members had tried to get into this last-minute package, this year-end package, that didn’t make it either, right? Like the child tax credit. Yeah. 

Kenen: I mean, there’s some mental health provisions and substance abuse provisions, but many of them didn’t make it. 

Rovner: The covid money didn’t make it. Rachel R., you would like to add something? 

Roubein: I think there’s a lot of under-the-radar provisions that people had championed for a long time that did make it. And obviously covid money didn’t. There was some pandemic preparedness that didn’t. But a bipartisan independent commission to study covid did not make it into the package, but some kind of interesting under-the-radar provisions, I think, included like a longer-term funding fix for the Indian Health Service, which Native Americans have been championing for a long time. And there was a pretty big funding boost for the 988 mental health crisis hotline, like a $400 million increase.  

Kenen: Another thing is — this is a little obscure — but normally Medicare drug coverage does not include something that would be under an emergency authorization. My understanding is — right? You’re shaking your heads — that they did fix that so that as the covid money didn’t get in, some of these drugs and therapeutics, and shots, and everything else that was not going to be subsidized by the government, they’re not gonna be free. And there was a problem with Paxlovid, which is the outpatient oral drug that you can get at a drugstore. Very important for the senior population that that was going to be really expensive, hundreds of dollars, because it’s an emergency authorization. So Medicare wasn’t going to be able to cover it. They did fix that. So seniors who do get covid, which is — may we repeat it yet again — still here and still spreading and yet another subvariant, can in fact get that under their drug coverage. They don’t have to put out hundreds of dollars out-of-pocket, which would have really been an impediment to some people. And it’s a really good drug. It’s one of the few things we have that really works. 

Rovner: And before we move away from this, it also included the pandemic preparedness bill that had been pushed by Sen. [Patty] Murray and retiring Sen. [Richard] Burr, the bipartisan bill, right? 

Cohrs: It’s not in its full form, but it’s pretty close to what they introduced. And a couple pieces to highlight there is that now the future CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] directors will have to be Senate-confirmed. And there’s a new pandemic office at the White House, which I think it’ll be really interesting to see how the infrastructure there shifts to instead of having, you know, a czar for covid and monkeypox and Ebola, you know, there’s going to be some sort of permanent infrastructure there. There’s also some public health data provisions and, like, recruitment for infectious disease doctors. There’s a lot in that package, but I think it’s definitely worth highlighting, as you said. The one other item that I think we haven’t touched on is that pandemic-era telehealth flexibilities have been extended for two years, which provides a lot of certainty with something that the health care industry really wanted. So that’ll continue with business as usual for another couple of years as Congress figures out what they would actually want to make permanent. 

Kenen: And the longer that goes on, right, the harder it is to take it away. 

Rovner: That was another thing that people were worried about when the public health emergency ended is that that freedom to do telehealth was going to end. Sorry, Joanne. 

Kenen: No, I mean, and the longer people have access to telehealth, the harder it will be for Congress to change it in two years. I mean, it’s probably here to stay.  

Rovner: Yeah. 

Kenen: They may tinker how they pay, or formulas, or certain limits. I mean, who knows what they’ll do in two years? It might not be exactly with the way it is right now, but the idea that telehealth is going to go away? It’s not going to happen. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think it’s … I also think it’s here to stay. All right. Let us turn to abortion. There has been a lot of news since we last talked about this in mid-December. But some of the biggest news that’s happened just came in the last few days from the Biden administration, which is taking some pretty significant actions, particularly by the Food and Drug Administration and the Justice Department, to make the abortion pill more widely available. Rachel R., tell us what they did. 

Roubein: On Tuesday night, and not with a ton of fanfare, there wasn’t a huge press release. But the Food and Drug Administration said that they will permit some retail pharmacies to dispense abortion pills for the first time. So that’s potentially a major step towards easing access to medication abortion — I should say, in states where it is legal. I think the really big question was what will major retail pharmacy chains do? On Tuesday night, they said they were still looking at it. But yesterday, CVS and Walgreens did say they planned to seek certification to do that. There’s a few steps they have to go through. The expectation is those two major retailers deciding to do that could have implications for other pharmacy use decisions. They may follow suit as well. 

Kenen: But to be clear, this still requires a prescription. This is not over-the-counter access. The so-called quote “morning-after” pill is over-the-counter. The abortion pill, which is [for] the first, I believe, 10 weeks of pregnancy, will still require a prescription, but it’ll be easier to fulfill that prescription. And there are time pressures when you can take that drug. It’s going to be easier to go to a neighborhood pharmacy and pick it up once you have the prescription. 

Roubein: Exactly. 

Rovner: When it first got approved, there were a lot of restrictions, including for a long time — and now in some states — that the doctor has to actually hand the pill to the pregnant person who has to then take it in the doctor’s presence. That obviously is starting to be relaxed because we now have 20 years of data that shows that this is a pretty safe way to end a pregnancy. But let’s not skip … what did the Justice Department do? They added to this, right?  

Roubein: Yes. So the Justice Department essentially cleared the U.S. Postal Service to deliver abortion pills to women in states that have banned or restricted the medication to terminate a pregnancy. Basically, the gist is that Postal Service had requested an opinion from the office. And the legal opinion issued Tuesday basically concluded that mailing the drugs doesn’t violate a nearly 150-year-old statute. 

Rovner: The Comstock law, for people who have covered the … 

Roubein: Yes, the Comstock law. 

Rovner: … the early history of birth control, that was what was used to ban the distribution of birth control until the 1960s. So I imagine that this is going to make the anti-abortion movement very angry because they seem to be honing in on the abortion pill, because they’re worried that in places where you ban abortion and you don’t have any more abortion clinics, people are going to turn to the abortion pill, which more than half of people are anyway, even in sort of the pre-end of Roe v. Wade world, when abortion was legal. 

Roubein: There was a lot of backlash from the anti-abortion movement in the past few days. And we’ve already seen a major conservative group file a lawsuit even over the approval of the pills from the FDA. 

Rovner: From the year 2000. The original approval, which seems a long time to wait, but I imagine that this will end up being maybe the biggest deal of anything the Biden administration has done. Because I can see … 

Kenen: On abortion. 

Rovner: Yeah, on abortion. Excuse me. Yes. When President [Joe] Biden said, after Roe v. Wade got overturned, that they were going to do everything they could to make abortion accessible and available, and they hadn’t done very much, all of a sudden, they seem to do a lot — at the last minute at the end of the year. Actually, there was one more thing that we should add to this last week in the middle of the break between Christmas and New Year, the Biden administration formally moved to reverse the Trump administration’s so-called conscience rules, which had been blocked by federal courts anyway. But that’s a fight that’s been going on since 2008, at the very tail end of the George W Bush administration, trying to balance the rights of individual health care workers to opt out of providing services that violate their conscience and balance that with the rights of patients to actually obtain care. The Biden administration signaled they were going to rewrite those rules in March of 2021. Does anybody have any idea what took them so long or is this just really hard to balance? 

Kenen: And one more quick thing that happened over the break is the FDA came out and formally stated, or restated more publicly and explicitly, that the so-called morning-after pill does not cause abortion. 

Rovner: That’s my extra credit. So we’ll get to that.  

Kenen: All right.  

Rovner: That’s another thing that I’ve been covering pretty much forever. All right. Well, let us move on. Also over the break, there was an unusually large amount of news between Christmas and New Year this year. We got a very juicy report from a congressional committee on its investigation into how Aduhelm, that promising, expensive, and ultimately mostly ineffective drug for Alzheimer’s disease, was approved by the FDA. Rachel C., you wrote about the report, and I know it’s very long, but what are a couple of the highlights here?  

Cohrs: The most interesting findings fell into two buckets for me. The first was looking behind the curtain at how Biogen priced this drug. The initial price was around $56,000 a year, which is really expensive. They later dropped that. But, I mean, it caused a great upheaval in the Medicare program. It caused a dramatic spike in premiums and then a drop the next year. I mean, it really impacted people’s lives. And the documents that the committee uncovered showed that Biogen was well aware of the impact that this drug could have on the Medicare program. They knew that if they priced this drug above around $20,000 a year, that some patients wouldn’t be able to access it. And they chose a really high price point anyway. And I think it just offers some interesting graphs to show that they saw the breakdown and they understood all the finances and they just wanted to make it the biggest drug launch in history. They wanted the blockbuster; they wanted the glory. And it definitely was historic, but not for the reasons that they quite wanted. 

Rovner: I was gonna say, they succeeded at making it a really big deal! 

Cohrs: And I think the other aspect that was really interesting as we got a little bit more insight into the FDA’s reflection on this whole process. And there was an internal review that the agency conducted that was made public in part for the first time, and they decided to exonerate themselves. They thought that communications were appropriate and that was kind of their top-line takeaway. But they did go through and admit that there were some problems. And I think one big issue was that Biogen and some FDA officials were working together to prepare presentations for FDA advisers. But there were other parts of the FDA that were a little bit more skeptical of the drug that were almost entirely left out of that process. They said the skeptical division didn’t know that this report was happening. They didn’t know they were working with Biogen, and they only hav, like, two days to comment. And then ultimately, that dispute wasn’t resolved before advisers got this presentation that was supposed to represent this “unity FDA perspective” that didn’t really exist. And I think there was some reflection there. But we still have some unanswered questions. We don’t know if there’s been any discipline within the agency. We saw no reference to it. But again, with personnel issues that can be sensitive. We don’t know what progress exactly they’ve made toward any of the committee’s recommendations or any of the internal review findings or suggestions there. But I think there are some big questions about the agency’s decision-making and how badly they wanted this drug approved and what they were willing to do to make it happen. 

Kenen: And … beyond the $56,000 [annual price] and beyond this whole controversy about the process within the FDA, there’s also the fact that this big controversial drug, expensive drug … there’s big questions about whether it works, how well it works, and how safe it is. I mean, it’s not like the hepatitis C drugs, which had these huge launches — eight? $84,000, you know, 10 years ago was a lot of money, or 12 years ago, whenever it was. They work. They cure hepatitis. I’m not defending the price point. But there’s a whole other thing. It’s this whole saga about this drug and, like, it’s not even a clear-cut, useful drug. 

Rovner: Well, and that … it looks like history might be about to repeat itself. We’re expected to hear possibly by the end of this week, FDA’s decision on a similar drug, lecanemab, which seems to work somewhat better than Aduhelm, but which also has dangerous side effects. Do we assume the FDA is going to be more careful with this one? 

Cohrs: I mean, I think there’s definitely a sensitivity by FDA as to how rebuilding public trust in the agency, because I think there was so much skepticism. Again, this is a different drug with the different data behind it that showing it maybe could be more clinically effective. But I think the agency is … I mean, we’ll see over time, but hopefully going to document and their decision-making process more clearly and being more accountable. But I think that there are going to be these lingering questions about this new drug, both for FDA and for Medicare, ultimately in deciding how they’re going to give Medicare beneficiaries access to this drug or not, because the parameters were based on this other drug, which is a strange situation. But that’s how these things work.  

Rovner: Yeah, but I mean, but to be clear, though, I mean, finding a cure for … an effective treatment for Alzheimer’s would be an enormous medical breakthrough that people, scientists, have been working towards for a couple of generations now. So at least it feels like they’re getting closer, but perhaps they’re not there yet.  

Cohrs: I think, yeah, there’s a little bit of a gap sometimes between, I think, what some people wish these drugs were and what they actually are. 

Rovner: Yeah. 

Kenen: So it’s sort of this first-draft phenomenon, like a drug will come out and it’s not great. But down the road — we’ve seen this with cancer, too — I mean, you have a certain kind of drug that’s the first of its kind and in the in the years to come, they’ll be a better version. I don’t think there’s a consensus on that with Alzheimer’s, though. I mean, they still don’t agree on what causes it. 

Rovner: Yeah, So we may not be there yet. All right. Well, moving on, Jan. 1 brought us another step in the government quest to help patients figure out how much medical care might cost before they get it. In addition to hospitals and insurers having to post prices, insurers will have to give their clients access to a cost estimate or that takes into account out-of-pocket costs like copays and deductibles. The goal is to make 500 different nonemergency services, quote, “shoppable.” Joanne, price transparency is one of the few reforms to the health care system that Democrats and Republicans actually agree on. Why is that? What makes … yeah, to a point … what makes transparency something that transcends the partisan disagreements about health care? 

Kenen: Well, I think that it’s hard to be against transparency. You know, you’re supposed to be for consumers not knowing anything? That politically is not great, right? So everybody’s for transparency. I think that the partisan difference is how much you think it matters. Like, the Democrats are for transparency, they’re not going to say, “No, consumers shouldn’t have tools” and that insurers and hospitals and everybody else shouldn’t empower us with more information that’s actually usable. The Republicans tend to think that this is much more of a cure-all for health care costs than the Democrats. Generally speaking, you’ll … it’s not 100%, but generally speaking, the Republicans have more faith in this as something that’ll really, really empower consumers and bring down prices and spur more competition. You know, I can see this provider charges this, this provider charges that; I’m going to go to the cheaper one. But that’s actually not how it always works in the real world. Sometimes people think in health care there’s two phenomena. One is like Hospital A can see that Hospital B is getting away with charging more and they raise their prices, or that people think the more expensive care is, the better care is, which is not true. So, yes, transparency is good. Yes, transparency is bipartisan. But how well this tool works in the real world? Health care is complicated, as we’ve all heard people say. It might be easier to find out, OK, you know, I need a mammogram. It’s going to be, you know, $30 here out-of-pocket and $90 there. That might be an easier call. But some of these really complicated conditions people have and treatments … and things go wrong. An insurer said that it’s going to cost $90. But then something happened and it cost $900. I mean, I just don’t see it as like, OK, we fixed health care.  

Rovner: And plus, what we’ve discovered from the transparency that we have is that people don’t shop even when they can. 

Kenen: Right. 

Rovner: You know, if their doctor says you should go to this place, that’s where they go. So it’s been hard to get them to use the transparency that’s available. Rachel R., you wanted to say something? 

Roubein: I think I found one of the interesting things about some of these debates over surprise bills and transparencies is sometimes it doesn’t always fall under ideological lines. Sometimes it is — at least in the surprise billing debate — lawmakers who are more hospital- or provider-friendly will stick together, whether they’re Republicans and Democrats. And then seven or more insurer-friendly will stick together. We saw some real fights between just committees in general on this. 

Cohrs: There was one more item I wanted to add on this, and I think when I first saw this kicked in, I was like, oh, I’m curious, does my health plan have this? So I poked around, couldn’t really find … it wasn’t on the homepage, you know, we have this flashy new feature. So I called the number on my card and they didn’t know anything about it, couldn’t help me. And so then I asked the media line, and then I finally figured out … like, they taught me how to do it. But I think there’s a big possibility that people just don’t know about this. And if they’re not asking the media line, it’s possible customer service reps aren’t trained in how to help people find it. And I think there’s just this disconnect sometimes, as things are rolling out. So I’m curious to see how many people use it, and it shows kind of generally what your plan allows, like generally what you might be expected to pay. But it wasn’t necessarily, like, here’s your bill, like what that’s going to be at one provider versus another. So I think I’ll be curious to see, once the reports and once academics do their wonderful work on really evaluating compliance over the next couple of months, what the results of that are and how that compares with what we’ve seen from hospitals. 

Rovner: I was already going to ask my next question: that politicians want this, but there’s been a lot of resistance from both health care providers and insurers who are loath to release what they consider proprietary information. And, Rachel C., as you pointed out, we have seen less than stellar showings for the information that’s supposed to be available already. We’ve also seen a lot of hospitals simply not post the information that they were supposed to post. Do we think that Congress might go back to this or is there some good way to nudge them to comply?  

Cohrs: I think there are some signals that the oversight could be a priority for … especially the Energy and Commerce Committee, I believe? The chair and ranking member, I think, last Congress wrote a joint letter, which is sort of unusual for Democrats and Republicans to join together in that way, saying that it’s an area of interest for them and that they would like to check into that more. So I think there are not a whole lot of things that Democrats and Republicans will be agreeing on this session. So I think this is a really ripe area for oversight.  

Rovner: Yes. Rachel R. 

Roubein: Off of what the other Rachel is saying, I think another place to watch here is the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, because over the summer they had done the first warning shot and fined two hospitals for flouting federal price transparency rules. So if they kick up more fines, etc., that could put pressure on other hospitals. 

Rovner: And finally, this week, while we’re talking about price transparency, there’s a new study from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group that finds that half of ambulance rides result in an out-of-network balance bill. Yet — we’ve talked about this before — air ambulances were covered in the surprise bill law, but ground ambulances were not. Any chance that might change? 

Roubein: You’re right. Ground ambulances were not. Basically, what Congress had [done] was said that they were going to require that an advisory committee begin, and that advisory committee work is going to start in January. CMS released the names of the people who are going to be part of it, and they will essentially have to issue a report to Congress within, like, 180 days of their first meeting, which I think is mid-January. 

Rovner: So stay tuned for that one. Obviously, more to come on this. All right. Well, that’s as much news as we have time for. Now we’re going to play my interview for the “Bill of the Month” with Mark Kreidler, and then we will be back with our extra credits. 

We are pleased to welcome to the podcast Mark Kreidler, who reported and wrote the latest KHN-NPR “Bill of the Month.” Mark, welcome to “What the Health?” 

Mark Kreidler: Hi, Julie. Nice to be with you. 

Rovner: So this month’s patient definitely got an outrageous bill, although the outrageous part was not so much the amount. It was the fact that she got a bill at all. Tell us who the patient is and what happened. 

Kreidler: Well, if we’re really getting serious about it, there were two patients. They’re both named Grace Elliott and that lies at the heart of the confusion. Our patient, the woman that we first interviewed to talk to about this story, is Grace E. Elliott. She’s 31 years old. She’s a preschool teacher now living in San Francisco, California. There’s another Grace Elliott. She’s 81 years old, a retiree living in Venice, Florida. Younger Grace, for lack of a better way to put it, once used a hospital in Venice, Florida. It was in 2013. She was a kid home from college on break. Younger Grace was taken to the hospital in Venice, which at that time was really just called Venice Hospital or Venice Regional Hospital. She was treated, held overnight for a kidney infection, received a prescription for antibiotics the next morning, and sent on her way. She remembers that it cost her about 100 bucks, which as a college kid, struck her as exorbitant. Those were the good old days. And that was the last time that Grace Elliott, the younger, ever used the hospital in Venice. In fact, it apparently was the first and last time. But that doesn’t mean her name wasn’t still in their records system. It was. And about this time one year ago, her mother, still living in Venice, received a letter from the hospital, now owned by a hospital corporation called ShorePoint, with her daughter’s name on it. She got a bad feeling about that letter, called her daughter in California. Younger Grace Elliott asked her mother to please open it, and what she found inside was a bill for $1,170 for hospital services at Venice, rendered over a six-day period the previous September. So Grace was a little bit confused. 

Rovner: So September of 2021. 

Kreidler: We’re now talking about nearly 10 years after she’d been to the hospital, she received a bill for services that she’d obviously never had. 

Rovner: So she actually must have started to go after to figure out what it was, right? 

Kreidler: Her first reaction was to do what any of us would do and say, “Oh, this is a case of mistaken identity.” Called the hospital, explained it very nicely: “Oh, you’ve got the wrong person.” The hospital basically at that point said, “We don’t think so. We’re pretty sure we have the right person.” And so this young woman was basically plunged into the medical billing system nightmare in which she has been misidentified. We now know because we reported the story, we know what happened. We know that when Grace Ann Elliott, an 81-year-old, as I mentioned earlier, living in Venice, needed a shoulder replacement, she went to the Venice hospital, she was checked in, and a registration clerk typed in her name, Grace Elliott. Clearly errantly retrieved the file of a 50-year-younger person, and then didn’t verify — and that’s where the story breaks down — the registration desk employee simply never confirmed via birth date or photo ID or anything like that. And at that point, two medical patients’ records functionally become one. That’s what younger Grace Elliott, the woman we spent most of our time with, wound up having to deal with. 

Rovner: I mean, this should have been easy to sort out. You call the hospital and say, “No, these are two different people. This is not my bill. I have not been to Venice, Florida. Obviously, this is not me.” And they take care of it. That’s what would usually happen in this situation. But that’s not what happened in this situation, was it? 

Kreidler: No. One of the things that happened to younger Grace Elliott was that she simply had been straight-up identified as the patient. The hospital was at that point simply trying to collect a bill. And so, in the early stages, Grace is calling this hospital. And then at a later point, she’s calling the medical system, you know, the owner of the hospital. But at each step, she’s just getting someone who never had anything to do with the case in the first place. And it’s simply part of the bill collection process. They’re just doing billing and records. And so even though Grace at one point was really able to definitively establish that she was not the person in question, and even though the hospital, at least one person in this hospital food chain, did say to her, “You’re right, we’ve got the wrong person.” Again, she made — I don’t even want to call it a mistake; she reacted the way most of us would. She exhaled a little bit and thought, “Well, good, this will be taken care of.” The next thing that she knew, she was being sent a letter from a collection agency because the hospital had done — hospitals do this all the time — if they have trouble collecting a bill, they’ll eventually pass it over to a collection agency. Now, Grace had a collection agency after her, so that’s got two problems. 

Rovner: So the whole thing sounds funny. The younger Grace Elliott got a bill for someone else’s care and got it sent to collections. The older Grace Elliott got her private medical records sent to the younger Grace Elliott, right?  

Kreidler: Yeah.  

Rovner: So how did this all get sorted out? 

Kreidler: Well, that is the really stunning thing that happened. And yes, she received, essentially as she appealed to the collection agency, in their denial of her appeal, they furnished medical records, which they thought was proof that they had the right person. In fact, they were sending her the records of Grace Elliott, this 81-year-old retiree who was obviously terribly upset to learn that her medical information had been shared. Luckily for her, I would say, it was shared with a very responsible younger person who not only started acting on her own behalf, but acting on older Grace Elliott’s behalf. The takeaway is that Grace was denied her appeal. She was denied a second time. She contacted us, and I’m not even really sure how she knew to do that. But I’m happy that she did because after we made a few phone inquiries, Grace began to see action. The hospital acknowledged that it had made a mistake. The hospital then went back and corrected its electronic records and took her out of the database of the collection agency. So they say, I mean, I think she’s being careful. She wants to see that this actually all happens the way it’s said that it would have happened. But yeah, they did eventually. And they acknowledged the mistake so that it was a straight-up human error. And that’s where the problem started. But for Grace, the nightmare was that once the problem started, even though as we sit here talking about it, Julie, it seems like such an easy fix. It took her one year to get this done. And really only journalists getting involved to really moved the needle on it. 

Rovner: What’s the takeaway here for other people? I mean, obviously, clerical errors do happen. Should either of these women have done something that would have avoided this or that would have cleaned it up faster? 

Kreidler: One of the big takeaways for medical patients is your information can be incorrectly entered and once it’s there, unless you forcefully push back, and I mean early and hard, it can be very difficult for that information to get removed. You know, database information lives on for generations. It can be hard to fix. So one big takeaway for anyone who’s using a hospital system, who sees a doctor regularly and has a health plan: Get online, look at your medical profile. Look at what your own profile says about you. And I have personal experience with this from a person very close to me who found a mistake in her medical record that took much pushback to eliminate. And it can be something as basic as a medication you never took. It can be a procedure you never had done. Sometimes things get eerily entered. So big takeaway is: Check your profile. Know what your medical record says about you so that if you need to push back on any aspect of it, you have your forces ready to be marshaled. 

Rovner: And obviously you can always complain to us, but there are other places that you can complain to, right? 

Kreidler: You certainly can. And you can go to the Better Business Bureau. These are, on some levels, consumer protection and consumer rights issues. So there are consumer agencies, federal agencies and state agencies, that can get involved on your behalf. In this case, the best defense is a good offense. Be very aggressive. Know what your profile says about you. Check your records often and do all the grunt work that we normally don’t want to do. But in a case like this, it becomes obvious pretty quickly how important it is. 

Rovner: Good advice. Glad this worked out for both of the Grace Elliotts. And Mark Kreidler, thank you very much. 

Kreidler: You bet. Thank you. 

Rovner: We are back now. It’s time for our extra-credit segment, where we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. 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. Rachel C., why don’t you go first this week?  

Cohrs: Sure. The piece I chose is headlined “‘Major Trustee, Please Prioritize’: How NYU’s E.R. Favors the Rich,” in The New York Times by Sarah Kliff and Jessica Silver-Greenberg. And I think this piece is the last installment in the Times’ series on nonprofit hospitals. And this one really stood out to me because it seemed like it was a new phenomenon. Like, I hadn’t really read a whole lot of stories about a case like NYU’s ER, where the reporters describe this dynamic where — theoretically in an ER, everyone comes in, you know, the urgency of your medical issue, the severity determines what priority you get. But they showed here that children of donors, politicians, family members were getting special treatment. There was even a special room that they typically went to that could have negatively impacted other patients’ care. And I think it was remarkable how many doctors that used to work there, they got on the record saying that this was morally questionable. And yeah, it was just really well done, really comprehensively documented. And I thought it was interesting as well how the hospital chose to engage with them by calling into question the integrity of the doctors that spoke with the Times. And it was just really not something that we see every day from hospitals’ emergency departments. 

Rovner: Yeah, it was a very interesting story.  

Cohrs: It was wild, great, well done, highly recommend. 

Rovner: Rachel R. 

Roubein: The piece I chose was titled “Hundreds of Hospitals Sue Patients or Threaten Their Credit, a KHN Investigation Finds. Does Yours?” And it was by Noam N. Levey, and this was part of a long-running series, I believe all year, a partnership between Kaiser Health News and NPR. And I just think they’ve been doing really interesting, impactful journalism on this. What really stood out to me here was reading the numbers, and I feel like the data tells a powerful story. So some snapshots of the numbers from KHN’s analysis was more than two-thirds of hospitals sue patients or take other legal action against them, such as garnishing wages or placing liens on their home or property. And about 1 in 5 deny nonemergency care to people with outstanding debt. 

Rovner: Yeah, which is quite a number. Joanne. 

Kenen: This is a story I wrote and I spent many months talking to people for it, and I wrote it with a physician in California who’s also a hospital executive in a poor neighborhood of L.A. And it was called “Racist Doctors and Organ Thieves: Why So Many Black People Distrust the Health Care System.” I think the takeaways of that is, you know, I think we tend — or at least white people tend — to blame the distrust on historical atrocities like Tuskegee. And there are many others that are not as famous. But … and I wrote about them, and people recalled them and told me about them. 

Rovner: Henrietta Lacks. 

Kenen: Henrietta Lacks, but … I mean, one person I talked about growing up poor and Black in the South and a kid in the neighborhood cut himself — a Black child, a poor Black child — and the doctor stitched his hand up. And when they found out he couldn’t pay, he took the stitches out. And this was in our lifetimes, right? At least, Julie, in my lifetime. So, you know, it’s not just a historical legacy. It’s today. It’s subtler today. It may be implicit and unintentional, but it exists. And the other thing, it’s not income-related. It’s not just poor people. It’s just pervasive. It was a really eye-opening story for me. And I have some follow-ups I’m working on. And the organ thieves. There was a heart transplant in Richmond, Virginia. A Black laborer. His family didn’t find out. It’s one of the first heart transplants in the country, and the family didn’t find out about it until the funeral home called and asked where his heart was or said they didn’t know where his heart was. 

Rovner: It is quite a story, and I think everybody really needs to read it. Well, as Joanne teased earlier, my story this week is from The New York Times by Pam Belluck. It’s called “The F.D.A. Now Says It Plainly: Morning-After Pills Are Not Abortion Pills.” And this is a story that I’ve been tracking personally for more than a decade. In 2012, Pam Belluck wrote the first story of the studies that found that, contrary to previous belief, the morning-after pill does not work by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg. It only works by preventing ovulation, meaning there’s not an egg available to be fertilized. It was the possibility that the morning-after pill might prevent implantation that led many abortion opponents to oppose the pill. This … remember the morning-after pill, not the abortion pill. But they call preventing implantation a very early abortion, even though that’s not the medical definition of pregnancy or abortion. I was surprised at the time that Pam’s story didn’t seem to get a lot of traction. So I did my own version of it the next year for NPR, which also didn’t get a whole lot of traction, which is another story that I have found out the reason for. But one of the things that I uncovered is that European drug regulators had already changed their labels to say that morning-after pills only work by preventing ovulation. Yet the FDA didn’t get around to changing the label here until last week. Maybe now some of this confusion will stop.  

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 producer, Francis Ying, who makes the weekly magic happen. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at what the health — all one word — @kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m still on Twitter: @jrovner. Joanne? 

Kenen: I’m marginally still on Twitter: @JoanneKenen  

Rovner: Rachel C. 

Cohrs: I’m @rachelcohrs 

Rovner: Rachel R. 

Roubein: @rachel_roubein 

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).

His parents sued the Kool Smiles dental clinic in Yuma, Arizona, and its private equity investor, FFL Partners. They argued the procedures were done needlessly, in keeping with a corporate strategy to maximize profits by overtreating kids from lower-income families enrolled in Medicaid. Zion died after being diagnosed with “brain damage caused by a lack of oxygen,” according to the lawsuit.

Kool Smiles “overtreats, underperforms and overbills,” the family alleged in the suit, which was settled last year under confidential terms. FFL Partners and Kool Smiles had no comment but denied liability in court filings.

Private equity is rapidly moving to reshape health care in America, coming off a banner year in 2021, when the deep-pocketed firms plowed $206 billion into more than 1,400 health care acquisitions, according to industry tracker PitchBook.

Seeking quick returns, these investors are buying into eye care clinics, dental management chains, physician practices, hospices, pet care providers, and thousands of other companies that render medical care nearly from cradle to grave. Private equity-backed groups have even set up special “obstetric emergency departments” at some hospitals, which can charge expectant mothers hundreds of dollars extra for routine perinatal care.

As private equity extends its reach into health care, evidence is mounting that the penetration has led to higher prices and diminished quality of care, a KHN investigation has found. KHN found that companies owned or managed by private equity firms have agreed to pay fines of more than $500 million since 2014 to settle at least 34 lawsuits filed under the False Claims Act, a federal law that punishes false billing submissions to the federal government with fines. Most of the time, the private equity owners have avoided liability.

New research by the University of California-Berkeley has identified “hot spots” where private equity firms have quietly moved from having a small foothold to controlling more than two-thirds of the market for physician services such as anesthesiology and gastroenterology in 2021. And KHN found that in San Antonio, more than two dozen gastroenterology offices are controlled by a private equity-backed group that billed a patient $1,100 for her share of a colonoscopy charge — about three times what she paid in another state.

It’s not just prices that are drawing scrutiny.

Whistleblowers and injured patients are turning to the courts to press allegations of misconduct or other improper business dealings. The lawsuits allege that some private equity firms, or companies they invested in, have boosted the bottom line by violating federal false claims and anti-kickback laws or through other profit-boosting strategies that could harm patients.

“Their model is to deliver short-term financial goals and in order to do that you have to cut corners,” said Mary Inman, an attorney who represents whistleblowers.

Federal regulators, meanwhile, are almost blind to the incursion, since private equity typically acquires practices and hospitals below the regulatory radar. KHN found that more than 90% of private equity takeovers or investments fall below the $101 million threshold that triggers an antitrust review by the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Justice Department.

Spurring Growth

Private equity firms pool money from investors, ranging from wealthy people to college endowments and pension funds. They use that money to buy into businesses they hope to flip at a sizable profit, usually within three to seven years, by making them more efficient and lucrative.

Private equity has poured nearly $1 trillion into nearly 8,000 health care transactions during the past decade, according to PitchBook.

Fund managers who back the deals often say they have the expertise to reduce waste and turn around inefficient, or moribund, businesses, and they tout their role in helping to finance new drugs and technologies expected to benefit patients in years to come.

Critics see a far less rosy picture. They argue that private equity’s playbook, while it may work in some industries, is ill suited for health care, when people’s lives are on the line.

In the health care sphere, private equity has tended to find legal ways to bill more for medical services: trimming services that don’t turn a profit, cutting staff, or employing personnel with less training to perform skilled jobs — actions that may put patients at risk, critics say.

KHN, in a series of articles published this year, has examined a range of private equity forays into health care, from its marketing of America’s top-selling emergency contraception pill to buying up whole chains of ophthalmology and gastroenterology practices and investing in the booming hospice care industry and even funeral homes.

These deals happened on top of well-publicized takeovers of hospital emergency room staffing firms that led to outrageous “surprise” medical bills for some patients, as well as the buying up of entire rural hospital systems.

“Their only goal is to make outsize profits,” said Laura Olson, a political science professor at Lehigh University and a critic of the industry.

Hot Spots

When it comes to acquisitions, private equity firms have similar appetites, according to a KHN analysis of 600 deals by the 25 firms that PitchBook says have most frequently invested in health care.

Eighteen of the firms have dental companies listed in their portfolios, and 16 list centers that offer treatment of cataracts, eye surgery, or other vision care, KHN found.

Fourteen have bought stakes in animal hospitals or pet care clinics, a market in which rapid consolidation led to a recent antitrust action by the FTC. The agency reportedly also is investigating whether U.S. Anesthesia Partners, which operates anesthesia practices in nine states, has grown too dominant in some areas.

Private equity has flocked to companies that treat autism, drug addiction, and other behavioral health conditions. The firms have made inroads into ancillary services such as diagnostic and urine-testing and software for managing billing and other aspects of medical practice.

Private equity has done so much buying that it now dominates several specialized medical services, such as anesthesiology and gastroenterology, in a few metropolitan areas, according to new research made available to KHN by the Nicholas C. Petris Center at UC-Berkeley.

Although private equity plays a role in just 14% of gastroenterology practices nationwide, it controls nearly three-quarters of the market in at least five metropolitan areas across five states, including Texas and North Carolina, according to the Petris Center research.

Similarly, anesthesiology practices tied to private equity hold 12% of the market nationwide but have swallowed up more than two-thirds of it in parts of five states, including the Orlando, Florida, area, according to the data.

These expansions can lead to higher prices for patients, said Yashaswini Singh, a researcher at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University.

In a study of 578 physician practices in dermatology, ophthalmology, and gastroenterology published in JAMA Health Forum in September, Singh and her team tied private equity takeovers to an average increase of $71 per medical claim filed and a 9% increase in lengthy, more costly, patient visits.

Singh said in an interview that private equity may develop protocols that bring patients back to see physicians more often than in the past, which can drive up costs, or order more lucrative medical services, whether needed or not, that boost profits.

“There are more questions than answers,” Singh said. “It really is a black hole.”

Jean Hemphill, a Philadelphia health care attorney, said that in some cases private equity has merely taken advantage of the realities of operating a modern medical practice amid growing administrative costs.

Physicians sometimes sell practices to private equity firms because they promise to take over things like billing, regulatory compliance, and scheduling — allowing doctors to focus on practicing medicine. (The physicians also might reap a big payout.)

“You can’t do it on a scale like Marcus Welby used to do it,” Hemphill said, referring to an early 1970s television drama about a kindly family doctor who made house calls. “That’s what leads to larger groups,” she said. “It is a more efficient way to do it.”

But Laura Alexander, a former vice president of policy at the nonprofit American Antitrust Institute, which collaborated on the Petris Center research, said she is concerned about private equity’s growing dominance in some markets.

“We’re still at the stage of understanding the scope of the problem,” Alexander said. “One thing is clear: Much more transparency and scrutiny of these deals is needed.”

‘Revenue Maximization’

Private equity firms often bring a “hands-on” approach to management, taking steps such as placing their representatives on a company’s board of directors and influencing the hiring and firing of key staffers.

“Private equity exercises immense control over the operations of health care companies it buys an interest in,” said Jeanne Markey, a Philadelphia whistleblower attorney.

Markey represented physician assistant Michelle O’Connor in a 2015 whistleblower lawsuit filed against National Spine and Pain Centers and its private equity owner, Sentinel Capital Partners.

In just a year under private equity guidance, National Spine’s patient load quadrupled as it grew into one of the nation’s largest pain management chains, treating more than 160,000 people in about 40 offices across five East Coast states, according to the suit.

O’Connor, who worked at two National Spine clinics in Virginia, said the mega-growth strategy sprang from a “corporate culture in which money trumps the provision of appropriate patient care,” according to the suit.

She cited a “revenue maximization” policy that mandated medical staffers see at least 25 patients a day, up from 16 to 18 before the takeover.

The pain clinics also overcharged Medicare by billing up to $1,100 for “unnecessary and often worthless” back braces and charging up to $1,800 each for urine drug tests that were “medically unnecessary and often worthless,” according to the suit.

In April 2019, National Spine paid the Justice Department $3.3 million to settle the whistleblower’s civil case without admitting wrongdoing.

Sentinel Capital Partners, which by that time had sold the pain management chain to another private equity firm, paid no part of National Spine’s settlement, court records show. Sentinel Capital Partners had no comment.

In another whistleblower case, a South Florida pharmacy owned by RLH Equity Partners raked in what the lawsuit called an “extraordinarily high” profit on more than $68 million in painkilling and scar creams billed to the military health insurance plan Tricare.

The suit alleges that the pharmacy paid illegal kickbacks to telemarketers who drove the business. One doctor admitted prescribing the creams to scores of patients he had never seen, examined, or even spoken to, according to the suit.

RLH, based in Los Angeles, disputed the Justice Department’s claims. In 2019, RLH and the pharmacy paid a total of $21 million to settle the case. Neither admitted liability. RLH managing director Michel Glouchevitch told KHN that his company cooperated with the investigation and that “the individuals responsible for any problems have been terminated.”

In many fraud cases, however, private equity investors walk away scot-free because the companies they own pay the fines. Eileen O’Grady, a researcher at the nonprofit Private Equity Stakeholder Project, said government should require “added scrutiny” of private equity companies whose holdings run afoul of the law.

“Nothing like that exists,” she said.

Questions About Quality

Whether private equity influences the quality of medical care is tough to discern.

Robert Homchick, a Seattle health care regulatory attorney, said private equity firms “vary tremendously” in how conscientiously they manage health care holdings, which makes generalizing about their performance difficult.

“Private equity has some bad actors, but so does the rest of the [health care] industry,” he said. “I think it’s wrong to paint them all with the same brush.”

But incipient research paints a disturbing picture, which took center stage earlier this year.

On the eve of President Joe Biden’s State of the Union speech in March, the White House released a statement that accused private equity of "buying up struggling nursing homes” and putting “profits before people.”

The covid-19 pandemic had highlighted the “tragic impact” of staffing cuts and other moneysaving tactics in nursing homes, the statement said.

More than 200,000 nursing home residents and staffers had died from covid in the previous two years, according to the White House, and research had linked private equity to inflated nursing costs and elevated patient death rates.

Some injured patients are turning to the courts in hopes of holding the firms accountable for what the patients view as lapses in care or policies that favor profits over patients.

Dozens of lawsuits link patient harm to the sale of Florida medical device maker Exactech to TPG Capital, a Texas private equity firm. TPG acquired the device company in February 2018 for about $737 million.

In August 2021, Exactech recalled its Optetrak knee replacement system, warning that a defect in packaging might cause the implant to loosen or fracture and cause “pain, bone loss or recurrent swelling.” In the lawsuits, more than three dozen patients accuse Exactech of covering up the defects for years, including, some suits say, when “full disclosure of the magnitude of the problem … might have negatively impacted” Exactech’s sale to TPG.

Linda White is suing Exactech and TPG, which she asserts is “directly involved” in the device company’s affairs.

White had Optetrak implants inserted into both her knees at a Galesburg, Illinois, hospital in June 2012. The right one failed and was replaced with a second Optetrak implant in July 2015, according to her lawsuit. That one also failed, and she had it removed and replaced with a different company’s device in January 2019.

The Exactech implant in White’s left knee had to be removed in May 2019, according to the suit, which is pending in Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois.

In a statement to KHN, Exactech said it conducted an “extensive investigation” when it received reports of “unexpected wear of our implants.”

Exactech said the problem dated to 2005 but was discovered only in July of last year. “Exactech disputes the allegations in these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend itself,” the statement said. TPG declined to comment but has denied the allegations in court filings.

‘Invasive Procedures’

In the past, private equity business tactics have been linked to scandalously bad care at some dental clinics that treated children from low-income families.

In early 2008, a Washington, D.C., television station aired a shocking report about a local branch of the dental chain Small Smiles that included video of screaming children strapped to straightjacket-like “papoose boards” before being anesthetized to undergo needless operations like baby root canals.

Five years later, a U.S. Senate report cited the TV exposé in voicing alarm at the "corporate practice of dentistry in the Medicaid program.” The Senate report stressed that most dentists turned away kids enrolled in Medicaid because of low payments and posed the question: How could private equity make money providing that care when others could not?

“The answer is ‘volume,’” according to the report.

Small Smiles settled several whistleblower cases in 2010 by paying the government $24 million. At the time, it was providing “business management and administrative services” to 69 clinics nationwide, according to the Justice Department. It later declared bankruptcy.

But complaints that volume-driven dentistry mills have harmed disadvantaged children didn’t stop.

According to the 2018 lawsuit filed by his parents, Zion Gastelum was hooked up to an oxygen tank after questionable root canals and crowns “that was empty or not operating properly” and put under the watch of poorly trained staffers who didn’t recognize the blunder until it was too late.

Zion never regained consciousness and died four days later at Phoenix Children’s Hospital, the suit states. The cause of death was “undetermined,” according to the Maricopa County medical examiner’s office. An Arizona state dental board investigation later concluded that the toddler’s care fell below standards, according to the suit.

Less than a month after Zion’s death in December 2017, the dental management company Benevis LLC and its affiliated Kool Smiles clinics agreed to pay the Justice Department $24 million to settle False Claims Act lawsuits. The government alleged that the chain performed “medically unnecessary” dental services, including baby root canals, from January 2009 through December 2011.

In their lawsuit, Zion’s parents blamed his death on corporate billing policies that enforced “production quotas for invasive procedures such as root canals and crowns” and threatened to fire or discipline dental staff “for generating less than a set dollar amount per patient.”

Kool Smiles billed Medicaid $2,604 for Zion’s care, according to the suit. FFL Partners did not respond to requests for comment. In court filings, it denied liability, arguing it did not provide “any medical services that harmed the patient.”

Covering Tracks

Under a 1976 federal law called the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act, deal-makers must report proposed mergers to the FTC and the Justice Department antitrust division for review. The intent is to block deals that stifle competition, which can lead to higher prices and lower-quality services.

But there’s a huge blind spot, which stymies government oversight of more than 90% of private equity investments in health care companies: The current threshold for reporting deals is $101 million.

KHN’s analysis of PitchBook data found that just 423 out of 7,839 private equity health care deals from 2012 through 2021 were known to have exceeded the current threshold.

In some deals, private equity takes a controlling interest in medical practices, and doctors work for the company. In other cases, notably in states whose laws prohibit corporate ownership of physician practices, the private equity firm handles a range of management duties.

Thomas Wollmann, a University of Chicago researcher, said antitrust authorities may not learn of consequential transactions “until long after they have been completed” and “it's very hard to break them up after the fact.”

In August, the FTC took aim at what it called “a growing trend toward consolidation” by veterinary medicine chains.

The FTC ordered JAB Consumer Partners, a private equity firm based in Luxembourg, to divest from some clinics in the San Francisco Bay and Austin, Texas, areas as part of a proposed $1.1 billion takeover of a rival.

The FTC said the deal would eliminate “head-to-head” competition, “increasing the likelihood that customers are forced to pay higher prices or experience a degradation in quality of the relevant services.”

Under the order, JAB must obtain FTC approval before buying veterinary clinics within 25 miles of the sites it owns in Texas and California.

The FTC would not say how much market consolidation is too much or whether it plans to step up scrutiny of health care mergers and acquisitions.

“Every case is fact-specific,” Betsy Lordan, an FTC spokesperson, told KHN.

Lordan, who has since left the agency, said regulators are considering updates to regulations governing mergers and are reviewing about 1,900 responses to the January 2022 request for public comment. At least 300 of the comments were from doctors or other health care workers.

Few industry observers expect the concerns to abate; they might even increase.

Investors are flush with “dry powder,” industry parlance for money waiting to stoke a deal.

The Healthcare Private Equity Association, which boasts about 100 investment companies as members, says the firms have $3 trillion in assets and are pursuing a vision for "building the future of healthcare.”

That kind of talk alarms Cornell University professor Rosemary Batt, a longtime critic of private equity. She predicts that investors chasing outsize profits will achieve their goals by “sucking the wealth” out of more and more health care providers.

“They are constantly looking for new financial tricks and strategies,” Batt said.

KHN’s Megan Kalata contributed to this article.

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).