The CMV vaccine had been the company’s lead program prior to the Covid-19 pandemic. Leadership had repeatedly said it could bring in between $2 billion and $5 billion in peak annual sales. Analysts polled by Visible Alpha forecast peak sales of $1.6 billion for the product.

“It’s obviously disappointing,” said Stephen Hoge, Moderna’s president, in an interview.

Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

Democrats and Republicans are both facing potential political consequences in their continuing standoff over federal government funding. Republicans are likely to face a voter backlash if they refuse to agree to Democrats’ demands that they renew additional tax credits for Affordable Care Act marketplace plans, since the majority of those facing premium hikes live in GOP-dominated states. For their part, Democrats are worried that Republicans will violate the terms of any potential spending deal.

At the same time, the Trump administration is using the shutdown to try to lay off thousands of federal workers, including those performing key public health roles at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg News

@annaedney

@annaedney.bsky.social

Read Anna's stories.

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

@joannekenen.bsky.social

Read Joanne's bio.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• As the federal government shutdown drags on, there has been little progress toward a deal on government spending — or on the expiring ACA marketplace subsidies Democrats are fighting to renew. Potential subsidy compromises could, for instance, implement a minimal premium in place of $0 premiums, to reduce enrollment fraud, as Republicans want.
• A federal judge halted the Trump administration’s latest layoffs of federal workers amid questions about the layoffs’ legality. The administration in particular dealt a heavy blow this round to the CDC, an agency that has been battered by staff reductions, policy shifts, and even violence.
• New reporting shows the Trump administration explored the feasibility of tracing abortion pill residue in wastewater, following up on an anti-abortion claim that the drugs may be contaminating the water supply. Yet advocates could have an ulterior motive: developing the ability to trace use of the pill to further crack down on abortions.
• And President Donald Trump unveiled a deal with a second drugmaker, AstraZeneca, that allows the company to avoid tariffs in exchange for building a new U.S. facility. But as with the first deal, it’s unclear how much money the agreement will save patients.

Also this week, Rovner interviews health insurance analyst Louise Norris of Medicareresources.org about the Medicare open enrollment period, which began Oct. 15.

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

Julie Rovner: Politico’s “RFK Jr.’s Got Advice for Pregnant Women. There’s Limited Data To Support It,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.

Anna Edney: The New York Times’ “The Drug That Took Away More Than Her Appetite,” by Maia Szalavitz.

Joanne Kenen: Mother Jones’ “From Medicine to Mysticism: The Radicalization of Florida’s Top Doc,” by Kiera Butler and Julianne McShane.

Lauren Weber: KFF Health News’ “Senators Press Deloitte, Other Contractors on Errors in Medicaid Eligibility Systems,” by Rachana Pradhan and Samantha Liss.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The Washington Post’s “She Left the Medical Mainstream and Rose To Be RFK Jr.’s Surgeon General Pick,” by Lauren Weber and Rachel Roubein.
• The Bulwark’s “There’s Something Weirdly Familiar About This New GOP Argument,” by Jonathan Cohn.
• Politico’s “4 GOP Ideas for an Obamacare Subsidies Compromise,” by Benjamin Guggenheim.
• The New York Times’ “The E.P.A. Followed Up on an Unusual Request About Abortion Pills,” by Caroline Kitchener and Coral Davenport.
• Bloomberg News’ “WHO Warns Against Three India-Made Cough Syrups After Child Deaths,” by Satviki Sanjay.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Schrödinger’s Government Shutdown

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Oct. 16, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Today we are joined via videoconference by Lauren Weber of The Washington Post. 

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello. 

Rovner: Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hey, everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll play my interview with health insurance expert Louise Norris, who will explain some of the changes coming with this year’s open enrollment for Medicare, which began Wednesday. But first, this week’s news. 

So, today is Day 16 of the government shutdown, and there is still no discernible end in sight. This week Republicans shifted their main talking point against Democrats. They were arguing that Democrats are trying to restore eligibility for Medicaid to illegal immigrants. Now it’s become a general takedown of the Affordable Care Act and arguing that in urging continuing the expanded tax credits for ACA premiums, Democrats want to throw good money after bad, because the ACA has made health care more expensive. 

First off, it has not. There’s lots of evidence that the ACA has actually held down health spending increases, although other factors have pushed it up. But more to the point, do Republicans still not get that the expiration of these additional tax credits are going to hurt their voters more than it’s going to hurt Democratic voters? I see arched eyebrows. 

Edney: It doesn’t seem like they get that yet, but I’m not in those strategy rooms, so a little tough to say what their line will be with this game of chicken. They basically are allowing firings of federal workers to continue to go forward in a way that they hope maybe will turn the tide and attention. It doesn’t seem to be working. So I don’t know if they’re having these conversations quite yet, but I know that the notices are starting to go out to some people in some states about these increases, and so it really might depend on what that backlash is from people who are going to see much higher costs for their health care. 

Rovner: Yeah, apparently open enrollment began in Idaho on Wednesday. I didn’t realize that they started early, and so there’s just that one little state where people are actually able to see what these premium increases look like, assuming that they do not continue these extra subsidies. I’m wondering sort of about the Republican strategy of, We couldn’t get any traction with the illegal immigrants, so we’re just going to move to “The ACA is terrible.” Joanne. 

Kenen: Well, I mean, we talked about this a couple of weeks ago. And Julie linked to the story, and I wrote about the politics of this. And one of the issues is [President Donald] Trump is a master of deflection. Are these people going to think it’s really Republican policy? Or are they going to think it’s greedy insurers, leftovers of the flaws of Obamacare itself, it’s Biden’s fault? And also concentration, I mean where the voters are in these states. Are there enough of them who actually are going to turn out to make a difference? They’re not going to flip Texas, right? 

Are there enough of them in swing states or closer-margin states to make any difference? Are there enough in a single congressional district to make any difference? I mean part of it, I think they’re just sort of banking on that they won’t get the blame, that it’s really easy for us to get mad at our insurers. And I think that’s part of what they’re hoping, that they can just say: Blame them. Blame the structure of Obamacare. Because it’s not our fault. So, whether that works as a selling tactic remains to be seen. If they thought it was a huge political risk, they wouldn’t do it. 

Rovner: True. Lauren. 

Weber: I’ve been fascinated to see [Rep.] Marjorie Taylor-Green come out and say, Wow, these are some expensive premiums. And her in general, her seeming split from some parts of the Republican Party, is fascinating to watch for many reasons. But it’s just a lot of money that these people could be staring down. I mean, there was an analyst quoted in some coverage that was, like, people will have to decide between groceries and rent. I mean, if you are paying over a thousand dollars more a month, for some of these folks, I mean, that is a significant amount of cash. So, I do feel like people vote with their pocketbooks more than they vote with anything else. But to Joanne’s point, I mean, will they attribute the blame? I’m not sure. 

Rovner: So, Politico was reporting on some possible options for a deal on those subsidies, which lawmakers are apparently talking about quietly behind closed doors, since actual negotiations are not yet happening. Two of those possibilities seem like real potential common ground. Minimum premiums — so, people who are now not paying any premiums, and the argument from some Republicans is that that’s pushing fraud, because some people, if they’re not paying premiums, don’t even know that they’re enrolled, and that the brokers are making money, which my colleague Julie Appleby has written about ad nauseum. So that seems like a possible place for compromise, to have a minimum $5-a-month premium so people would know that they have insurance. And maximum incomes for the subsidies. I know that people are floating, like, $200,000 a year or something like that. 

Then there are two possibilities that at least strike me as less likely. One of them is grandfathering the subsidies, so only people who are getting them now could continue to get them, which would be problematic at a time when the economy seems to be shedding jobs, and changing the abortion language, which I don’t even want to start with. So, I’m seeing the first two as a real possibility. The second two, not so much. I’m wondering what you guys think. 

Kenen: I mean, I’ve talked to some Republicans who claim that the current structure of the subsidies would enable families who are making $600,000, which all of us would agree is a fair amount of money. When I was told that, I went on a whole bunch of different calculators and pretended I was making $600,000. And could I actually get the subsidies? And I kept being laughed at by these calculators. I think there are probably some cases where this has happened. It’s a complicated formula where 8% of — we don’t have to get into the technicality. There may be— 

Rovner: But it is a percent of your income. You only get a subsidy if it’s more than — yeah. 

Kenen: And you’d have to have a premium that’s, like, an extraordinarily rich premium. I mean, it has to be in a really, really, really, really high number. Can this exist under current law? Several reputable Republicans have told me yes. Or conservatives — they’re not all necessarily Republicans. Conservative on this issue, at least — have said yes. I mean, if that’s the kind of thing that you want, to set an income cap, that was probably what was intended. I would take that out of the nonstarter and into the starter pile. I don’t think that’s enough, but I think that’s a reasonable discussion for both sides to have. I don’t think the intention was to subsidize people who were really not lower-middle, middle class. 

Rovner: The people who got the big tax cuts. 

Kenen: Right. They’re getting other tax cuts. I thought that was an interesting piece with some interesting options, but I’m also hearing escalating rhetoric, back to 2014 kind of rhetoric, back to repeal kind of rhetoric, that everything that you hate about the health care system is the fault of Obamacare, nothing in Obamacare works. We’ve got a really — they’re not saying “repeal,” but they’re saying reform it, and I’m hearing more and more of that. It’s just in the air now. So, and Jon Cohn had a really good piece in The Bulwark about some of the background of this. I think it could mean that this becomes a more intense tug-of-war that does not bode well for a quick resolution of the shutdown. 

I don’t think we necessarily get into a yearlong repeal fight, even if you call it reform. But I think that these demands and this rhetoric about, Well, high-risk pools worked. Well, no, they didn’t. That, This is why your insurance costs have gone up. No, there’s a whole bunch of incentives and structures and bad stuff in our health care system. It is, Obamacare fixed certain problems. Those of us, we all have employer insurance, I believe, and all of us face cost increases and frustrations and hitting our head against brick walls and delays. And things are not perfect by any means, but it’s not because of these subsidies in Obamacare. 

Rovner: And it’s not because of Obamacare. [Barack] Obama himself this week was on a podcast and said it was intended as a start, not as the be-all, end-all. I was surprised. I mean, I think one of the reasons that Republicans, I mean, this is now in their talking points about, We’re going to go after Obamacare. And [Rep.] Mike Johnson, the speaker, had kind of a rant on Monday, I mean, which sort of opened this up. And I think some of the Republicans were also talking about it on the Sunday shows. But I can’t imagine that Republicans don’t remember that the last time they had this big fight against Obamacare, Obamacare won. That was in 2017, and if anything, it’s even more popular now because there’s twice as many people on it, which was kind of the way I set up my first question. 

Kenen: Right. But the dynamic of a year’s worth of repeal votes while other things are actually functioning in government versus a fight about this when Trump holds a lot of the cards in a shutdown — it’s comparable but not the same. 

Rovner: Anna? 

Edney: Well, and I also have to wonder if an actual extended replace, or reform, whatever we’re going to call it, fight is what they want, or if this is a strategy to help blame the increases in premiums that are coming on Obamacare in general directed towards the Democrats, right?. I mean, you can see how that line could be drawn. And so if they just keep bashing Obamacare, it’s Obamacare’s fault that Obamacare’s premiums got higher, not because they didn’t vote on extending the subsidies. 

Kenen: And we’re also talking about Obamacare again. We had been talking about the Affordable Care Act. It had gone from Obamacare, which is politically toxic, to Affordable Care Act, which was sort of a subtle acknowledgment that it had bipartisan popularity among people getting benefits. And now we’re back to Obamacare, which sort of tells me, yes, we’re back into some of this endless loop of political fights about Obamacare. 

Rovner: Yeah. 

Kenen: And trying to get the Guinness Book of World Records for repeal votes on a single piece of legislation. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile — and I said this last week and I think the week before — that even if there is a deal on the tax credits, the bigger problem for Democrats right now is that if they make a deal on spending levels for fiscal 2026, which is what this fight is actually over, the administration can simply undo it, and Congress can ratify that undoing with a simple majority of just Republican votes. This week, even Republican [Sen.] Lisa Murkowski wondered aloud why Democrats would do a deal like that. So, I’m still wondering how they get out of that box, even if they were to get some kind of a compromise on the ACA subsidies. I certainly don’t know how Democrats get out of that box. I think the Republicans don’t know how they get out of that box. 

Kenen: They don’t realize they’re both in the box. That’s one of the problems. This is a large box. 

Rovner: It’s Schrödinger’s shutdown. We will have to see how that plays itself out. In the meantime, I’m not holding my breath. Well, moving on, despite laws against it, as Anna already mentioned, the Trump administration began firing federal workers last week, and the cuts hit particularly hard at the Department of Health and Human Services and agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The cuts appeared both sweeping and devastating, at least at first, including the entire staff of the CDC’s news journal and lead public health source of information, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Though by the end of the weekend, many of the firings had been rescinded. It’s not clear whether that really was a coding mistake, as was the official explanation, or an effort to continue to put federal workers, quote, air quotes here, “in trauma” as OMB [Office of Management and Budget] Director Russell Vought famously promised before he took office for the second time. Whichever, it’s not really the way to get the best work out of your workforce, right? Telling you: You’re fired. No, you’re not. Maybe you are? Go ahead, Lauren. 

Weber: I would like to go back to the story I wrote in April when a bunch of fired health workers were told to contact an employee who had died. I don’t think, based on the coding error or some of these past things, it does not seem like these layoffs are being done in any sort of organized way. It doesn’t seem like they have up-to-date records. It seems like, also, are these layoffs even legal, based on some of the litigation that’s been filed? I think there’s going to be a lot that has to shake out there. But, I mean, to be quite honest, it is very striking to see a bunch of CDC employees continue to get laid off after, again, this is an agency that got shot at with hundreds of bullets. Police officer— 

Rovner: Yeah, literally shot at. 

Weber: Literally shot at with hundreds of bullets, and a police officer died responding to that, due to a shooter who had been radicalized in part, it seems, from his father’s account, by information that was wrong about the covid vaccine. So, to see more of those employees get laid off, I mean, you just have to wonder who’s going to want to work at these places. Morale is just completely, as we understand it, terrible. But yeah, I also question if that was a coding error or what exactly was happening there, because there were a lot of priorities of folks that were seemingly let go that are allegedly Make America Healthy Again priorities, but that’s also been true for many months of policymaking, so— 

Rovner: Yeah, there’s a lot of right hand not seemingly knowing what left hand is doing in all of this, which may be the goal. I mean, I think you put your finger on it. It’s like, who would want to work at these places after what’s being done? And I think that’s the whole idea of the Russell Vought strategy of, Let’s shrink the federal government to a point where it’s so small that you can just sort of put it in a box and put it under the bed. That’s essentially where we are. Well, Lauren, as you mentioned, Wednesday afternoon, a federal district court judge ordered the administration to pause the firings. But will they actually obey that? And do we even know what offices have been most affected at this point? 

I mean, we heard a lot of things like the entire Office of Population Affairs at HHS, which runs Title X, has apparently been reduced to one person. The people who do a lot of the statistics and survey work at CDC. All these people sort of appear to have been laid off, but we’re not quite sure, and we’re not quite sure what’s going to happen from here. 

Kenen: I’m not sure if they know they’ve been laid off and rehired, because if you were laid off, you lost your access to your work email, and then if you get an email in your work email saying, Oops, you’re hired. I mean, I guess people sort of may just see if they have access again, but I’m not really sure how the actual notification of this somewhat chaotic layoff, no-layoff thing is. 

Rovner: It has been chaotic. I think that’s a good word to describe all of this. Well, one reason it was relatively easy for the administration to go after the CDC is that it doesn’t have a leader — or even a nominated leader — at the moment, after the firing of Susan Monarez in August, less than a month after her Senate confirmation vote. Another high HHS position that remains vacant is that of surgeon general, although that office at least has a nominee, Casey Means. She’s the sister of RFK [Robert F. Kennedy] Jr. top aide and MAHA associate Calley Means and more than a little bit controversial. Lauren, you did a deep dive this week into the prospective surgeon general. What’d you find? 

Weber: Yeah, my colleague Rachel Roubein and I did a deep dive into her background. And she’s, look, she’s a fascinating example, really, of MAHA today. And you could argue she really wrote the manifesto to MAHA with her book “Good Energy” that she authored with her brother, Calley Means. But basically she’s a very accomplished person in the sense that she went to Stanford undergrad; she graduated from Stanford med school; she had a very prestigious residency in ear, nose, and throat surgery; and then she resigned. She left and decided she wanted to take a different path and has become a bestselling author, a health products entrepreneur, and has also worked, as her financial disclosures have revealed, to promote a variety of products in some of her work. Financial disclosures revealed that she had received over half a million dollars over basically the last year and a half promoting a variety of different supplements, teas, elixirs, diagnostic products, and so on. 

And several of the medical and scientific experts I spoke to said that they worried that she spoke in too absolute of terms about health, and they were really concerned that as someone who would be the surgeon general that she would use that bully pulpit and speak in terms not necessarily grounded in evidence. They pointed to some of her remarks about how cancer and Alzheimer’s and fertility was within one’s power to prevent and reverse, and they felt like that language went a step too far. And looking at her history, they are concerned about what that could mean for the health of the nation if she is directing it. 

Rovner: She doesn’t even have a confirmation hearing scheduled yet, does she? Well, the Senate’s in so they could. 

Weber: She is pregnant, so I think that is playing into the timing of some of her stuff. But yes, she does not have it scheduled. Her forms seemingly were pretty delayed. And then obviously there’s other things going on. I mean, I think the CDC firing also sucked a lot of health air out of the room of what people want to deal with and spend their political capital on, I suspect. But yes, we shall see. 

Kenen: Yeah, she has to go before the [Senate] HELP [Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions] Committee, which is, Sen. [Bill] Cassidy is the chair. He is not a happy camper at the moment, from his public statements, and we do not know what the private conversations he is having at this point in time. 

Rovner: And of course, that committee will also have to pass on the new CDC nominee when there is one. 

Kenen: Yes. And the last CDC hearing, which all of us watched, I think he’s clearly concerned and displeased by lots of things going on at the federal health agencies. So, none of us are in those rooms, but they’re probably interesting conversations. 

Rovner: As I like to say, we will watch that space. Well, turning to reproductive health, The New York Times has a story this week about something that we’ve talked about before on the podcast, arguments by anti-abortion activists that abortion pill residue in wastewater might be contaminating the nation’s waterways. Notwithstanding that there is no evidence of that, the Environmental Protection [Agency], acting on a request from anti-abortion lawmakers in Congress, ordered scientists to see if they could develop methods to detect the drug in wastewater. Now, the groups that originally pushed this say they were concerned about pollution. But if such a detection method is successfully developed, abortion rights supporters worry that it could be used to trace users in particular buildings in order to enforce abortion bans. This is basically another step in this sort of, Let’s try and shut down abortion nationwide. Is it not? And Anna I see you nodding. 

Edney: Well, I mean that was my feeling when I read this really good piece that you’re talking about. And it’s a little bit lower down in the piece when they do start talking about using this to target maybe buildings or places where someone might have used an abortion drug. And I kind of was like, Yes, this is what I assumed they were trying to do, as I read this. And the reason for that is not just because I feel like there’s always a vindictive motive or something, but it’s because there are lots of drugs that are in our wastewater, and people are taking far larger amounts daily of many more things that is all going into our wastewater. So, particularly, why you would want to track that one, which is not used by millions of people for a chronic condition on a daily basis, it seems like there would be an ulterior motive. 

Rovner: And has not been shown to do any harm, even if it is showing up in trace amounts in the wastewater. Although presumably that’s what the EPA scientists were also tasked with trying to figure out. 

Kenen: I mean, it’s really hard to get rid of a drug you no longer take. I mean, pharmacies don’t want to take it back. In my neighborhood, there is a pharmacy at a supermarket that does have a take-back, which is great, but it’s always broken. If you have any drug that you want to get rid of responsibly and not have it end up — Anna’s right, I mean, there’s just a lot of stuff in our water. It’s really hard to do. And this is not the only drug that is an issue with. 

Rovner: Although if you Google it, there are a lot of places where you can actually take back drugs. 

Kenen: It’s hard. It’s limited hours, limited access, and the machines are often— 

Rovner: Yeah. Yeah. 

Kenen: I’ve been trying for a couple of them for a few months, actually. 

Rovner: You do have to actually take some steps actively to do it. Well, turning to drugs, and drug prices, there was so much other news, you might’ve missed this, but President Trump last Friday afternoon announced a deal with a second drug company to bring back manufacturing, in order to avoid tariffs. This deals with AstraZeneca, which promised to build a plant in Virginia. But Anna, is there any promise to actually bring down prices for consumers in any of this? 

Edney: Minimally, possibly. It’s a lot like the Pfizer deal, and we saw that focus largely on Medicaid, that already has extremely steep discounts that are required by law. And so how much they’d actually be slashing to offer the “most favored nations” pricing that Trump wants to the Medicaid program, it seems like that probably isn’t a huge leap, and certainly we saw that Wall Street didn’t react with any hair on fire. They’re not worried about the bottom lines of these companies when these deals come out, and they’re avoiding tariffs for three years. So, kind of net positive, seemingly. We don’t have all the details of the deal— 

Rovner: Like with the Pfizer deal where we never got all the details. 

Edney: Yeah, exactly. So, there’s some stuff that we still don’t know, but Medicaid is the main focus. Then they’ll offer, again, some of their drugs on TrumpRx. So, maybe if your insurance doesn’t cover something, or if you don’t have insurance, and you want to get a drug, that might be helpful. But most people I think are going to opt to pay their lower copay than the cost of a drug that is discounted but still full price. 

Rovner: Well, in case you’re looking for a reason why it might be a good thing to reshore some drug manufacturing, the World Health Organization this week warned of potentially poisonous cough syrup made in India. According to one of your Bloomberg colleagues, Anna, 22 children have died in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh — I hope I’m pronouncing that close to right. And this is far from the first time poisonous substances have been found in medications made in India, right? You’ve done a lot of reporting on this. 

Edney: Yeah, for sure, and these are really tragic stories that now seem to keep, particularly with these kind of cough medicines, keep popping up. And thankfully the FDA did put out a message saying these cough medicines in this round were not sold in the U.S., but there have been times where India has imported some of these. There were children in the Gambia that died last time — this was a few years ago. Because what’s happening is some of the drugmakers in India are supposed to be purchasing a solvent. It’s propylene glycol. Well, that solvent, that helps the medicine kind of all mix together. It can be a lot cheaper if you buy something that looks like it but is actually deadly, diethylene glycol. And so that’s what some of these companies are doing, is saving money and substituting a deadly ingredient. And so we see that this is a problem a lot of times with some of the drugmakers, and it’s happened, unfortunately, particularly in India, where the cost-cutting, the corner-cutting has actually affected people’s lives, and in this case, tragically, children. 

Rovner: Yeah. There is reason to kind of want to keep drug manufacturing where the FDA can keep an eye on it, which I know you will continue to report on. 

Edney: For sure. 

Rovner: Because that has been your specialty, I know, of late. 

Edney: Yes. 

Rovner: All right, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my Medicare open enrollment interview with Louise Norris, and then we’ll come back with our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Louise Norris. She’s a health policy analyst at Medicareresources.org and at Healthinsurance.org and the author of some of the most helpful guides to health insurance out there — and the person who keeps track of all the changes for health reporters like me. Louise, so happy to welcome you to “What the Health?” 

Louise Norris: Thank you so much, Julie. It’s a pleasure to be here. 

Rovner: So, we’ve talked a lot these past few months about how the Affordable Care Act and its potentially skyrocketing premiums for 2026 is about to happen, but we haven’t talked as much about some of the changes to Medicare, for which open enrollment began this week. Now, most years it’s probably OK for Medicare recipients just to let whatever coverage they have kind of roll over. But that’s not the case this year, right? 

Norris: Well, I feel like it’s never the best idea to just let your coverage roll over, because there’s always plan-specific changes that people just really need to pay attention to. And even though averages might be fairly steady in terms of premiums and benefits, that doesn’t mean your plan will have a steady premium or benefits. And for 2026, we’re seeing in the Medicare Advantage and Part D —stand-alone Part D — drug plans, there are fewer plans available on average and actually a slight average decrease in premiums. But I feel like if people see that as the headline, they might be sort of lulled into complacency, of like, Oh, I just don’t need to look, when in reality there’s quite a bit of variation from one plan to another. So, although the average stand-alone Part D plan premium is actually decreasing slightly, some plans are increasing their premiums by as much as $50 a month. So, you need to really pay attention to the notice you got from your plan about what’s happening for 2026 and then comparison-shop. Comparison-shop is always in your best interest every year. 

Rovner: Right, because, I mean, people don’t realize that maybe your doctor’s been dropped from your Medicare Advantage plan or your drug has been dropped from your Part D plan. So, I mean, even if your premium doesn’t change that much, your coverage might be changing a lot, right? 

Norris: Exactly. And you don’t want to find that out when you go to the pharmacy in January to fill your prescription and then you’re locked into your Part D plan for all of 2026. It’s definitely better to know all those details at this right now during open enrollment. 

Rovner: Now there are some coverage changes that people are starting to feel from really a couple of years ago, yes? 

Norris: There are. So, there’s some basic changes like, for example, the maximum out-of-pocket cost on Part D plans, which just went into effect in 2025 under the Inflation Reduction Act, it was a $2,000 cap on out-of-pocket costs for Part D. That is indexed for inflation. So for 2026 it goes up to $2,100. So not a huge change but definitely a change people should know about. And you do still have the option to work with your plan to spread that out in equal payments across all 12 months of the year instead of having to meet it right at the beginning of the year, if you take an expensive medication. There’s this change in the maximum Part D deductible, just like there is every year. This year it’s, for 2025, it’s $590 is the maximum deductible. It’ll be $615 next year. That doesn’t mean your plan will have a $615 deductible, but it might. 

But there are also plan-specific changes that vary from one plan to another. So, for example, your Medicare Advantage plan might be adding or subtracting supplemental benefits. They might be changing the amount of your deductible or changing the amount of your inpatient hospital copay. There’s all sorts of changes that aren’t necessarily broadly applicable but that apply to your plan. And then, like you were saying, whether or not your doctor and hospital are still in the network, whether your prescription drug is still covered and covered at the same level, plans can move prescription drugs from one tier to another. So, those are all the sorts of things you really need to pay attention to now so that you can comparison-shop and see if something else might be a better option. 

Rovner: And we are seeing plans starting to sort of drop out. I mean, I know at one point there was concern that there were too many plans for people to choose from, that it was, just, it was too confusing. But now are we running the risk of having too few plans in some places? 

Norris: Well, I think the concern about too many plans is definitely valid. For a while, there were — it could definitely be overwhelming for people shopping for coverage. For both Medicare Advantage and Part D, we do have, overall, an average of a reduction in how many plans are available for next year. There are a few states where the average beneficiary will actually see more options for Medicare Advantage, but that’s rare. But the average beneficiary will have access to more Medicare Advantage plans than they did before 2022, for example. It’s just been in the last few years that it has decreased, but it still hasn’t decreased below the level that it was in 2022. So it’s still a lot. I believe it’s an average of 32 plans. And then in the Part D, for people who buy stand-alone Part D coverage, everybody has between eight and 12 plans to pick from. 

So, if your plan is ending, you obviously need to shop for new coverage. If you’re on a Medicare Advantage plan and you don’t shop for new coverage, you’ll just be automatically moved to original Medicare on Jan. 1. If you’re on a Medicare Advantage plan that’s ending, because your carrier is exiting the market or pulling out of your area and your plan can’t be renewed, you can pick any other Medicare Advantage plan that’s available in your area. But you also can do, you can switch to original Medicare, and you’ll have guaranteed issue access to Medigap, which is not normally the case. During this open enrollment period, people have guaranteed issue access to Medicare Advantage and Part D but not Medigap. So, for other folks whose Medicare Advantage plan is continuing, obviously they have the option to switch to original Medicare. But depending on how long they’ve been on their Advantage plan and what state they’re in, they do not have guaranteed issue access to Medigap. So, that is an important thing for folks to know if their plan is actually ending, is that they can make that choice if they want to. 

Rovner: We’ve seen a lot of increases in health care costs overall, and I guess that’s true for Medicare, too. I mean, why should people who aren’t on Medicare care about what happens to Medicare and what happens to the Medicare market? 

Norris: First of all, hopefully all of us will eventually be on Medicare. Almost everyone by the time they’re 65 is on Medicare. But even if you’re a long ways away from that, it is important to know how much the whole Medicare sphere, in terms of the insurance companies and the regulations, how that sort of trickles down to the rest of the commercial insurance sector. Drug price negotiation, for example, that will have a trickle-down effect into what the insurance companies in the rest of the commercial market pay for drugs. When regulations come out for Medicare, they oftentimes, the insurance companies follow suit in the private market, or states will follow suit in terms of how they regulate the private market. So, it certainly does matter for everyone, even if it’s not a direct effect. 

Rovner: So even if you’re not 65 or helping somebody who’s over 65. 

Norris: Exactly, yes, and that’s the other thing is a lot of folks who are younger are helping a parent or a grandparent navigate this, and so it really does affect most people. 

Rovner: Yeah, it is one of the autumn tasks for many people. 

Norris: Absolutely. 

Rovner: Helping Mom and Dad or Grandma and Grandpa navigate their Medicare coverage for the following year. 

Norris: And I do think, like you were saying earlier, as far as just letting it ride, obviously if you comparison-shop and you’re happy with your coverage and you’ve determined that it is still the best option, then, yes, you do not need to do anything. You just, assuming it’s still available for renewal, you just let it renew. But oftentimes I think people don’t comparison-shop, simply because the process seems overwhelming and they just figure, I’ll just keep what I have. And of course, if you’re in that situation, you might be one of the people who’s on a Part D plan that’s increasing by $50 a month next year, or you might find out in January that your doctor’s no longer in-network with your Advantage plan. 

So if you get those notices from your plan and something doesn’t make sense or you’re confused, it’s much better to reach out to someone who can help you, whether it’s a family member or friend, asking them for help, or call 1-800-MEDICARE. Call the Medicare SHIP in your state. Every state has a State Health Insurance Assistance Program that’s staffed with people who can answer your questions. Contact a Medicare broker in your area. Just asking questions and finding out the answers is a much better approach than just assuming things will work out if you just let your plan renew. 

Rovner: I’ll put a link to your site also. 

Norris: Yeah, Medicareresources.org. We do have an open enrollment guide where we list all of the changes that are happening for 2026, the broad changes, and we’ll continue to update that. For example, we don’t yet have the Medicare Part B premiums for 2026, so as those numbers come out, we’ll update that guide with everything people need to know. 

Rovner: Louise Norris, thank you so much. 

Norris: Absolutely. Thank you so much for having me, Julie. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize the story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Joanne, why don’t you go first this week? 

Kenen: The piece I have this week is from Mother Jones, and it’s about Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo. And the headline is “From Medicine to Mysticism: The Radicalization of Florida’s Top Doc,” by Kiera Butler and Julianne McShane. It’s a phenomenal read. He has stellar credentials — Harvard, Stanford. He was an academic medicine MPH [master of public health]. He’s public health and medicine. He had this stellar traditional career. He was widely respected. And now he is this leading voice. He’s trying to get rid of the vaccine mandates, childhood vaccine mandates, to the whole state of Florida. He has questioned all sorts of established public health practices. He is out there. And we’ve sort of all wondered: How do people get to this point? 

And this story talks about his wife and her mysticism, and their guru healer, who walks on their thighs to the point that it’s painful. And they emerge from this foot-walking thigh-walking thing, and his mystical experiences with this whole different take on the human experience and the role of health. I cannot begin to capture it. And here it is. It is a long, detailed, and fascinating read on his wife, who he met on an airplane, and her beliefs in, we bring certain things on ourselves because of who we are and who are the ancestors that we carry. She sees auras and visions, and this is their current belief system. And it is not compatible with what most of us think of as science-based public health. Really good read. Really, really good read. 

Rovner: Definitely MAHA to the max. Anna. 

Edney: Mine was a guest essay in The New York Times, “The Drug That Took Away More Than Her Appetite,” [by Maia Szalavitz]. And I thought it was a really great look at how some of these obesity medications, the GLP-1s like Ozempic and others, can be used to treat addiction. And so it follows this woman who was addicted to different kinds of drugs at different times. And she lost her children and all sorts of horrible things and had tried over and over again to stop using, and then has been in this program that uses a version of these GLP-1s at a lower level — they don’t necessarily want you also losing weight — but to treat addiction, and just how it’s kind of been the only thing that’s worked for her. It stops the cravings, kind of as you think it might do for people with obesity as well. 

I thought we don’t see this as much, and the companies that make these drugs aren’t extremely focused on this. So I thought the article did a good job of saying why this could be really important, and looking at the fact that right now it requires federal funding of research to keep the promise alive, and hope that at some point some pharmaceutical company will be more willing to pick it up. 

Rovner: Right now, there’s a lot more money to be made in the obesity side of this. But yeah, it’s a really interesting story. Lauren. 

Weber: I actually highlighted work from Rachana Pradhan and Samantha Liss from KFF Health News. The article’s titled “Senators Press Deloitte, Other Contractors on Errors in Medicaid Eligibility Systems.” It’s impact from their great reporting, which I think we talked about on this podcast earlier in the year, about how — talk about waste, fraud, and abuse — that there’s some questionable issues with how Deloitte manages Medicaid systems and how money’s being wasted through them. And the senators, it looks like, read KFF Health News’ reporting and have sent some letters about it. So, great work by the team over there, and eye-opening for sure to see, on some of the dollars, Medicaid, that are not going to patients. 

Rovner: Journalism impact. My extra credit this week is a really thoughtful story from our fellow podcast panelist Alice Miranda Olstein at Politico. It’s called “RFK Jr.’s Got Advice for Pregnant Women. There’s Limited Data to Support It.” It’s about a topic that I have been covering for more than three decades — the difficulties of including women, particularly women of childbearing age, in clinical trials of drugs. As Alice outlined so well, the problem isn’t just ethical — an unborn fetus obviously can’t give informed consent to be part of an experiment — but it’s also a question of liability. Drugmakers are afraid of getting sued for bad pregnancy outcomes, and with good reason. That’s why it’s so hard to know what is and isn’t safe to take during pregnancy and what might cause birth defects or miscarriages. And despite the secretary’s promise to, quote, “do the science,” it is not that easy. It’s a really, really good read. 

OK, that is this week’s show. Thanks this week to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. 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. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me still on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks these days? Joanne? 

Kenen: I’m either on Bluesky, @joannekenen, or on LinkedIn. 

Rovner: Anna? 

Edney: Bluesky or X, @annaedney. 

Rovner: Lauren. 

Weber: I’m on X or Bluesky, @LaurenWeberHP. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

In 2023, Johnson & Johnson announced it had stopped research and development on therapeutics for many infectious diseases, including hepatitis and tuberculosis. Less visibly, AbbVie shuttered last year its pro bono technical R&D support on infectious diseases such as malaria and Chagas disease.

These are not isolated cases. An increasing number of large pharmaceutical companies from the Global North are leaving the field of R&D for infectious disease therapeutics to move to more lucrative areas, particularly cancer, obesity, diabetes, autoimmune, and rare (but highly profitable) diseases. This trend is not new — it has been consistent over the past two decades — but it is accelerating.

Read the rest…

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

In a highly unusual White House news conference this week, President Donald Trump — without evidence — boldly blamed the painkiller Tylenol and a string of childhood vaccines for causing a recent rise in autism. That came just days after the newly reconstituted Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, now populated with vaccine skeptics and opponents, voted to change long-standing recommendations.

Podcast host Julie Rovner interviews Demetre Daskalakis, who until last month was the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, about the reaction to these unprecedented actions.

Meanwhile, as the government approaches a likely shutdown, with Congress at a standoff over funding for the new fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, the Trump administration is ordering federal agencies not to just furlough workers but to fire them if their jobs do not align with the president’s priorities.

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

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg News

@annaedney

@annaedney.bsky.social

Read Anna's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

@SandhyaWrites.bsky.social

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The federal Office of Management and Budget on Wednesday night sent a memo to government agencies asking for contingency plans in the event of a government shutdown starting Oct. 1. Such a memo isn’t unusual when it comes to pre-shutdown planning. This time around, it took an unprecedented turn in informing agency personnel that they should prepare for mass firings of employees whose programs lack alternative funding sources or who are working on a program whose mission doesn’t directly align with Trump’s priorities. Though federal RIFs, or reductions in force, and government shutdowns have each happened before, the combined RIF/shutdown threat is a first.

• It seems we are headed for a shutdown. Before adjourning until after the fiscal year ends Sept. 30, the House approved a stopgap funding measure. But, because House members do not plan to return to Washington until Oct. 6, that leaves the Senate in a jam. If senators change anything in the bill, it would require another House vote, which, because of the House schedule, might not happen before the month ends.

• There’s also interparty strife. Republicans say they want a clean bill to provide short-term funding, while Democrats have other ideas. Their prevailing attitude is that they went along with this approach in March and got burned. This week, Trump also canceled a meeting with Democratic leaders. The bottom line is that both sides are jockeying for a position that would allow them to cast shutdown blame across the aisle. Some call it a game of three-dimensional chess, while others call it a game of chicken. Either way, there will be consequences.

• Confusion and chaos have emerged as buzzwords to describe two recent events: last week’s meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and this week’s White House press conference about autism. Both were marked by mixed messages. At the White House event, for instance, Trump warned pregnant women not to take Tylenol. But the FDA information that shortly followed downplayed the Tylenol risk.

• The Trump administration’s new $100,000 fee for H-1B visas could have an impact on health care. Such visas are often used by graduating medical students and other health professionals who come to the U.S. for training, then stay to practice. That $100,000 fee is steep and generated an almost immediate backlash from hospitals and health systems, especially those in rural areas — a reaction that caught administration officials off guard. Administration officials have suggested that health professionals would qualify for an exemption from this fee. What is not yet clear is what hoops the sponsoring hospitals would have to jump through to qualify for it.

• Trump has given 17 drug companies a Sept. 29 deadline by which they will have to commit to adopting his “most favored nation” pricing policy. It’s intended to increase the cost drugmakers charge in other countries while lowering prices in the U.S. Talks between the administration and the drugmakers are ongoing. So far, indications are that Trump might end up with half a loaf. Some large drugmakers have announced they will raise the prices of specific medications in other countries but have not agreed to reduce prices in the U.S.

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

Julie Rovner: NBC News’ “RFK Jr. Has the Federal Vaccine Court in His Sights. Attacking It Could Threaten Vaccine Production in the U.S.,” by Liz Szabo.

Anna Edney: The Washington Post’s “Do State Abortion Laws Affect Women’s Recruiting? That’s Up to Athletes,” by Kevin B. Blackistone.

Sandhya Raman: ProPublica’s “Psychiatric Hospitals Turn Away Patients Who Need Urgent Care. The Facilities Face Few Consequences,” by Eli Cahan.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• Axios’ “Drugmakers Meet Trump Only Halfway on Pricing Plan,” by Peter Sullivan.
• Bloomberg Law’s “White House Says Doctors May Win Reprieve From H-1B Visa Fee,” by Rachel Cohrs Zhang, John Tozzi, and Jessica Nix.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Public Health Further Politicized Under the Threat of More Firings

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Sept. 25, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this, so here we go. 

Today, we are joined via videoconference by Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Sandhya Raman: Good morning. 

Rovner: And Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hey, everybody. 

Rovner: So we’re going to do something a little different today. I got a chance to speak on Wednesday with Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, the former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. I asked him to respond to the White House announcement on autism and last week’s rather muddled meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. So we’ll play that interview first, and then we’ll come back for our panel discussion. Here’s the interview. 

I am so pleased to welcome Dr. Demetre Daskalakis to the podcast. Until last month, Dr. Daskalakis was the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases in Atlanta. He quit, along with three other senior career CDC officials, after Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired their boss, Susan Monarez, for refusing to approve in advance changes to the childhood vaccine schedule. Dr. Daskalakis, thank you so much for joining us. 

Demetre Daskalakis: Thank you so much for having me. 

Rovner: So, for those who haven’t been plugged into the public health doings over the past month, remind us what exactly your job was at CDC and why you felt you needed to resign following the dismissal of Dr. Monarez. 

Daskalakis: So CDC is made up of centers, and so I ran one of the centers, called the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. CDC’s not known for its pithy titles. So what that is is the center that is responsible for a lot of what you think about when you think about vaccines and vaccine-preventable diseases. That includes the resources that go out to local jurisdictions. 

Rovner: And when Dr. Monarez was fired, what did that signal to you? 

Daskalakis: Yeah. I think the last eight months had been hard. I think that we had other things that happened before Dr. Monarez’s resignation. I think we saw the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices be zombified into something that was not science, we saw recommendations around covid vaccine come out on Twitter rather than through any scientific process. So those were the things that were on the way. But as ACIP was made zombified — and what I mean by that was CDC has nothing to do with it, these folks who have been installed, who are frankly anti-vaxxers for the most part, they’re the ones that are driving the agenda, the membership, all of it — so it wasn’t really doing anything of scientific consequence anymore. 

But when Dr. Monarez was there, we had a scientific leader whose job it was to really be a diplomat to Secretary Kennedy and Health and Human Services, but also to really make sure that the science is what leads the policy. And so, when I saw that organization, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, become some strange ideology machine, and then also saw that I wouldn’t have a scientific leader at CDC who would be able to defend the science, the game was over for me, because I couldn’t see any way that we would be leading with science. Instead, I could only see ideology. I read RFK’s books, and I know what’s coming, which is the dismantling of vaccines for the United States. 

Rovner: So can you talk a little bit about how the career scientists and doctors at the CDC normally interact with the political appointees at the agency and the political folks at the top of HHS, and how that was so different in this administration? 

Daskalakis: Yeah. I worked with — now that would be — four CDC directors and two secretaries of health. And so, the way that we normally interacted as career scientists was that we would produce materials; if there were questions, we would create memos and other materials to be able to present to our politicals around those issues. We would be responsive to any issues that they wanted to talk about. So for instance, if somebody said, “I want to talk about the birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine,” we would create briefing materials and opportunities for the politicals, both at HHS and CDC, to be able to have time with career scientists to really learn about the story. And that’s not what’s happened in this newest regime. 

Now, let me be clear, Dr. Monarez did ask for briefings, and she did get them, so that is not the person I’m talking about. Above that, the secretary had never been briefed by anyone from the National Center of Immunization and Respiratory Diseases while I was there, so he never heard about measles, never heard about bird flu, didn’t hear about covid, though he made decisions about covid, didn’t hear about any of the things that we normally brief about. Didn’t hear anything about seasonal flu, RSV, and covid. We had been briefing folks on a monthly basis, because this was the epidemic that we have every year. So to say that there’s a glitch in the matrix is an understatement. This is an extremely atypical environment, where the head of people’s health for America doesn’t talk to people who know the science. 

Rovner: So I want to ask you about the ACIP meeting, but since then, we’ve had the White House announcement on the causes of autism and a potential new treatment for it. Can you give us your take on that entire event, both the press conference announcing it and the documentation, such as it was, that was provided afterwards? I have to say, I watched all of the covid press conferences with President [Donald] Trump in 2020, and this made even my eyes cross a little bit. 

Daskalakis: So let’s rehash what happened with the acetaminophen and autism issue. So they took one study and elevated that study and did this Orwellian doublespeak around it, where they said that it showed that there was a link, quote, “link,” between acetaminophen and autism. The study didn’t show that; the study showed that there was an association, and so an association does not mean cause. And so, my example that I use is when you are meeting people who have lung cancer and you ask them if they have matches in their pocket, they very often do. It’s not the matches that cause the lung cancer, it’s the tobacco; it’s the smoking. 

So very similarly, there’s an association with acetaminophen, that’s the matchbook. Autism is a spectrum and it’s not a disorder or a disability for some people, it’s just part of their normal neurocognitive story, but it’s like the equivalent in my analogy of lung cancer. And so, there’s something in between there that we don’t really see, and that could be genetics and other environmental exposures. So they put all of their eggs in one basket that should make nobody feel comfortable that they have the answer for autism because they found an association that people kind of already knew about and made an announcement, mainly because the secretary promised a September announcement. And so, science can’t be rushed, this was a rush job, and I don’t like my policy fast and loose, and that’s what you’re seeing, fast-and-loose policy. 

They also talked about leucovorin, which is a drug that I think many people use or know about, usually used in cancer chemotherapies that involve some kind of antifolate, so it is a rescue. So if people are getting a medicine that makes their folate low, the folinic acid is kind of like super folate that really replaces the deficiency. And so, they made big statements about this being a potential treatment for autism, but then subsequently in the writing that they put out, they were very focused on a very specific circumstance of people who have some sort of cerebral folate deficiency. 

So that’s the big picture. They announced a bunch of stuff, and it didn’t go through any process, we don’t know the quality of the data, the entirety of the data was not reviewed in any systematic way, and then announcements were made without any process of actually demonstrating what work was done to get there. We’ve all been in math class — the answer to an equation isn’t just 25, you have to show the work to get there, and so it’s like they just said, “The answer is 25.” 

Rovner: And in this case, this could cause all kinds of actual consequences for people, particularly for pregnant women who have pain or fever. 

Daskalakis: Which is associated with poor outcome for the pregnant woman, as well as for the fetus or the child after they’re born. So there’s that reality, that it’s not inconsequential, and then you have someone saying, “Avoid it, don’t do it, at all costs, don’t do it,” and then what the FDA puts out that says, “Should use judiciously.” 

So I’m going to answer the second part of your question, what did I think of the press conference? I’m going to be honest, I don’t blame the president for anything that he said. I blame RFK Jr. and the other people on that stage. Their job is to make sure that their principal knows what they’re talking about, and so they have failed their job because what happened was we had a principal who was talking about things that were, I think, beyond his scope. And then also, we thought we were just talking acetaminophen, and then all of a sudden, in a non sequitur, we heard about the vaccine schedule for kids with some very strange places that we visited, including the notion that hepatitis B is a sexually transmitted infection, and rather than the birth dose that prevents vertical transmission, mother to child, as well as household transmission, we should wait until age 12, which will manifest itself as liver cancer, liver transplant, and cirrhosis for a lot of children, especially those who maybe are at higher risk because of their social circumstance. 

So that’s what I thought. I was, like, poor guy, he’s being briefed by people who don’t know anything, and so maybe they should take care of him. 

Rovner: All right. Well, I want to also ask you about your reaction to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ meeting last week, where the committee voted to change recommendations for both the measles-mumps-rubella and chickenpox vaccines and the covid vaccine. At the end, it felt like everyone was confused, including the members of the committee. What stood out to you about that meeting? 

Daskalakis: I felt like an oracle, because in my resignation letter, I told you this was going to happen, and it’s exactly what I thought. And so, what happened was they did no process and just did stuff. And so, let me just give you what normal is, because that’s really important, and then I’ll walk you through each one and tell you why they were abnormal. 

So generally speaking, something happens, and there’s a question related to vaccine policy, there’s a new vaccine, there’s new data around safety, something happens. And that’s elevated either by ACIP members, CDC, or the working groups that live within the ACIP that do all the work on the side before the meeting. So that question comes to the work group, and the CDC folks work really hard and poll all the data in the world about the question. They in effect work to do what is, for lack of a better word, a meta-analysis, a study of studies, and they go through a process called GRADE, where they look at all the data and say, “This is good data, this is OK data, there’s bias,” really to contextualize all of the data. They then put that onto a clear table that tells you what’s happening. Now, they did that for a couple of things. 

The next thing is that there are long discussions. They’re long because they’re complicated, and they go through something that’s called an Evidence to Recommendations Framework. Now, that’s jargony, but what it means is that there’s this process where they ask, “Is this an important public health question? What are the implications for equity? Do the risks and the benefits … what is the equation there? Is there more harm or more good? Is this something that is going to improve the health of people? And is this cost-effective?” There’s a lot of domains, but they go through it really methodically because they want to get all of the domains that are needed for decisions. Once they do that, they produce a recommendation. That is taken to ACIP and it’s discussed. And then they vote. 

So what happened was that they didn’t do it, because RFK Jr., I know this from the inside, said, “I want on the agenda hepatitis B birth dose and MMRV.” What you saw there was politicization of the committee, ideology dominating, conspiracy theories being elevated to the level of data, and then decisions being made based on that. So if the data’s no good, if the foundation of the house is rotten, that house shouldn’t be standing, so that’s what we saw. 

And I want to go back to that hepatitis B thing. So they may go and do something that’s more process. But one of the reasons that I left was that CDC is not allowed to dictate who is on the work group anymore. So if they stack the work group with people that are anti-vax people, who are naysayers, who are not basing conversations on data, but on the anecdote or unvetted studies, it won’t matter, because that process will also be rotten if there’s not a diversity of opinion and scientific expertise on the work group. So that’s what happened at ACIP. 

Rovner: So following some pretty unusual public health actions just in the week since you’ve resigned, what’s your biggest concern about public health going forward? 

Daskalakis: So I think that there’s a couple of things that happened that I didn’t talk about yet that are very concerning. I’ll tell you that the book that I picked up to start reading when I finished my time at CDC was [George] Orwell’s “1984,” and the reason that I picked it up was because really soon after I left, I have nothing to do with stopping it or starting it, but just saying temporally speaking, CDC changed their webpage, that was the “About CDC” webpage, into, in effect, what is a manifesto as opposed to a description of an agency that is supposed to be balanced and scientific. So it really, in effect, speaks about compliance to ideology as the principal motivator for what CDC is and will do. There were other things wrong with that document, but we don’t have the time to go into that one. 

And so, I feel like — first chapter of “1984” that talks about ministries that are using doublespeak to be able to say what they do, I think we are now living it. And so that’s my fear, that everything that’s going to be coming out of CDC is going to be colored by ideology, or that data is going to be released from CDC without scientists able to explain it so that it can be used for other means or that will allow folks who are more ideologically motivated to be able to make conclusions based on inadequate analyses. So that’s what I’m worried about. 

Rovner: So how do we proceed from here, both public health professionals and Americans who are just looking for health guidance? 

Daskalakis: Yeah. I think we’re at a dark time, but I also think that there’s going to be light in the darkness, it just may not be today. So the first thing is trauma-informed care, your feelings are valid: This is not normal, something not good is going on, and it’s hard to figure out who to trust. And so, my recommendation to people is, and I know that this is a hard one because not everybody has access to care, is if you do have access to care, you really need to lean into your doctors — doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, pharmacists — taken widely and broadly, health care professionals. So even if you don’t have a primary care doctor, you have a pharmacist, and so go to that pharmacist and talk to them. It’s not as good as having one word for the land, as had been standard for CDC, but in this environment, I think you need to go with people that you trust. 

I’ll also say one of the things that should be a red flag for everybody out there is — I’m a doctor, I take care of patients — and I do actually believe that the relationship between a clinician, a health care provider, whoever they are, and their patient is very sacred. And so, whenever you hear anyone in the world trying to destabilize that relationship, saying that, “Doctors don’t know what they’re talking about, don’t listen to the pediatricians,” that is not someone you should be taking medical advice from, because they’re actually at their core trying to get you to not listen to the people who are your best allies and advocates in the health space. 

Rovner: Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, thank you so much for joining us. 

Daskalakis: My pleasure. 

Rovner: OK. We are back with our panel, and I want to ask both of you about your reactions to the ACIP meeting and the autism announcement. But let’s turn first to the breaking news about the potential government shutdown that’s less than a week away. Last night, the Office of Management and Budget, which traditionally sets the rules for who stays on the job in a shutdown and who doesn’t, issued a memo of the sort I’ve never seen before. Rather than directing agencies to prioritize which activities are needed to preserve, quote, “life and property,” and thus who’s required to work without pay for the duration and who gets furloughed until funding is restored, this memo basically says if the activity doesn’t have another source of funding and it’s not within the administration’s priorities, agencies should prepare to fire not furlough workers. This is obviously a big ramping up of this shutdown. I know this just happened, but what kind of reaction are you guys seeing? 

Raman: This to me just seems very, very highly unprecedented. We’ve had shutdowns, we’ve had near shutdowns, many of them in the past, and it has not escalated to this at any time that I’ve seen. 

Rovner: Forty years, I’ve been doing this 40 years, I have never seen anything quite like this. We’ve had rifts and we have shutdowns, but we’ve never had them combined. 

Raman: Yeah. And so, I think it’ll be really interesting how the next few days play out. The Senate is in for a couple of days before we would hit the shutdown, if there’s anything they can come together on. It is really difficult when you escalate to this level when they’ve been trying to negotiate so far. It’s hard. The House isn’t supposed to come back until Oct. 6. 

Rovner: Oops. 

Raman: So if the Senate changes anything or wants to change anything compared to what the House had passed, they’re stuck. Either the House has to come back in or they shut down until they come to a compromise on something. So I think from everyone that I’ve been talking with over the past few weeks, it seems like we’re really headed to a shutdown. It’s possible they get a few Democrats to fold and go with what’s there, but I think this last move, and then also President Trump saying that he was going to meet with Democrats earlier this week, and then saying, “No, I don’t want to,” they’ve been saying there’s not good-faith efforts to negotiate, so they’re in a pickle at this point. 

Rovner: Let’s get real: This is about not whether we’re going to have a shutdown, but who gets blamed for the shutdown. Traditionally, it’s been the Democrats, and the Republicans keep saying this, who say, “Look, we’re just having a clean extension of funding, we’re just going to basically roll out the clock, kick the can down the road, so we can continue to negotiate over funding for next year. Why won’t Democrats go along with that?” And Democrats are responding, “Well, we went along with it in March, and look at what’s happened in the interim, and our base didn’t like that, so we think we should fight this time.” And then, you had the president agreeing to meet with Democratic leaders, but then the Republican leaders in Congress telling the president, “No, don’t meet with them.” It’s all strategy at this point. You’re nodding, Anna. 

Edney: Yeah, yeah. I was just thinking, I think a lot of times, talking about this administration, people are saying, “There’s no plan.” But I do see the 3D game of chess at this point, and that letter very clearly mentioned if the Democrats shut down the government, that was lobbying that into the court of the Democrats saying, “This is your fault if it happens.” And I do think that the Democrats were burned last time in the sense that it seemed like they might allow a shutdown and then backtracked pretty quickly and the base just didn’t like it, and I think we’re seeing a lot from the, I don’t know what exactly to call them, thought leaders on the more liberal side saying, “Just do it, let it rip.” If it shuts down, they’re going to try to find a way to blame it on the Republicans. 

So I think it’s a game of chicken at this point, but there are real consequences. These are people’s jobs who aren’t necessarily going to all want to come back to the government if things suddenly, it works out. These are activities that we rely on for everyday life that will be hurt. 

Rovner: Yeah. We’ve already seen the administration trying to hire back some of the people that they laid off earlier this year because it turns out they were needed to do important jobs. I saw House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark this morning on CNN describing this letter as, “The beatings will continue until morale improves.” This really is playing with the lives of government workers who basically have come to these jobs because either they believe in them or because they usually have been stable jobs. They might, may be able to make more in the private sector, but government jobs tended to be secure, and boy, that’s not what’s happening right now. They don’t seem to be guilty parties in all of this, and yet they’re the ones who are being used as pawns. 

Raman: I think one thing that I have been thinking about in reading that OMB memo is that it says that the rifts are going to affect people that aren’t also really aligned with carrying out President Trump’s priorities and mission. What does that entail? Within HHS, what falls in that bucket? We have some ideas based on previous executive orders and things that he’s made some remarks on, but there’s plenty that we don’t know. 

Rovner: They could theoretically shut down the entire NIH [National Institutes of Health] or the entire CDC, which I think Secretary Kennedy might not mind. 

Raman: How that would go about, I don’t know. I think that we’ll all be really looking to see what kind of contingency documents they put out. They usually put those out before, when we’re in this waiting period about a shutdown, and it would definitely be very different than the ones that we’ve had in the past for a department down or agencies. What that’ll say, I just don’t know. 

Rovner: Yeah, that’s right. To be clear, the OMB memo is to the agencies saying, “Send us your contingency plans.” Normally, that would’ve happened by now, it usually comes out a couple of weeks ahead of a potential shutdown and everything. We’re playing brinksmanship here. Anna, you wanted to say something before we move on? 

Edney: Oh, I don’t remember what that was. But just on the last point, I think the agencies, they usually have that contingency plan at the ready, but they can’t — I don’t think that this would’ve been the one that they had drawn up. I think they have to tear that up and start over again. And like you mentioned, the CDC, the NIH, you can, through this mandate, possibly see how you could just wipe out an entire agency. 

I think on the FDA side, I just wanted to add, there are some user fees on that side that may keep the drug review side afloat, anything where they’re looking at approvals and things like that is funded, at least for a while. If this devolves for months and months, that’s not the case. But there are a lot of other parts where they’re doing inspections and keeping the drug supply and the food supply safe that could be impacted. 

Rovner: Yeah. And we should point out that this does not affect things that have mandatory funding, like Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, and, as you say, user fee funding, like the review activities at FDA. 

Well, while we’re on the subject of things that are unprecedented, let’s turn back to that ACIP meeting and the White House autism announcement. One of the things that ties them together is the fact that both leave the public with more confusion than clarity over what to do about vaccines and Tylenol and, once again, leaves Americans wondering who or what they can trust. What’s the biggest takeaway from each of you? Anna, why don’t you go first, about both the autism announcement and the ACIP meeting? 

Edney: Yeah, I think there just is a ton of confusion. I can’t count how many times people are like, “Remind me again, who can get a covid shot and who can’t? And what are we doing with RSV now?” There was a lot of talk before the ACIP meeting about hepatitis B and that even the ACIP members were confused. 

So I think that one thing that I think this makes crystal clear is that when I know that this administration and many of the people at the top in health care don’t appreciate the medical establishment and they don’t feel that it is operated in a way that is open to modernization. But you can’t just break it all and then start over, these are guidelines and things that people rely on, and it has to be, I think, a much more thoughtful process than what we’re seeing right now. You have a lot of people who are pregnant or have young children who are freaking out, because they’re like, well, I took Tylenol for three days because I had a fever, and I think that it creates more fear-mongering, because the guidance really isn’t that different, what the FDA actually said isn’t that different from what was already out there, you’re just really scaring people now. 

Raman: So I think I would say something along similar lines, the mixed messaging and the confusion of that both events is pretty stark. So I think the thing that struck me with ACIP is just the second day, we have a re-vote on something that you voted on the first day, and if you watch just one, you would assume that what happened there is done, and then going back, it’s just very unusual and makes it even more confusing. 

And I think the second thing that struck me was that we had this whole shake-up of ACIP in general to be like, we don’t want conflicts of interest, we want people that are able to vote on everything. And then, here, when we have the votes, we have someone on ACIP not be able to vote on something because they’re disclosing a conflict of interest. So it struck me that we went through this whole process that was to eliminate that, and then here we are back to that, which people have been saying for a long time, it’s difficult to find anyone in this space that doesn’t have other things that are connected to vaccines. 

For the autism announcement, the thing that was really interesting to me was that this was done on the White House level rather than just HHS is having an event, it’s with some agency folks there, and then them putting out information, whatever they’re talking about. This was predominantly Trump speaking in a much more aggressive, this is what is what tone, compared to the agency folks who mostly were downplaying a little bit of what he’s saying. He repeatedly said, over and over again, “Don’t take Tylenol, don’t take Tylenol, no Tylenol for pregnant women.” And then, even when you look at the FDA release that came out a little bit after really downplayed it, it said that there was an association, but there wasn’t a causal relationship that they had found between acetaminophen and autism in children. It goes back to that mixed messaging, where even if the majority of scientific professionals are saying that this goes against what a lot of the research that they’ve been doing, you’re going to be confused. 

Rovner: Yes. Another thing that seems to tie together both the ACIP meeting and the autism announcement is to basically put all medical responsibility on individuals, which many consider to be blaming the victim and increasing stigma by basically saying, “Whatever you decide, whatever happens is your fault.” I feel like we’ve careened from maybe too much reliance on experts to too little. That was certainly the president’s message at that press conference, it’s like, “Well, this is just common sense.” It’s like, I thought we were supposed to be relying on gold-standard science. 

Edney: That was a very stark point, where it was like, what do you mean you feel this? It’s like, I think you’re supposed to know that through research and scientific data. 

But I wanted to go back, you mentioned blaming the patient, I think specifically on the autism side, this is something we see with expecting mothers a lot, because I interviewed professor Emily Oster about the autism announcement, and she dives very deep into data on a lot of things parents are concerned about, and she was telling me about “refrigerator moms” in the 1950s, and I didn’t realize this, but apparently women were blamed for different mental illnesses if they were too cold, not freezing-cold, but emotionally not available for their children enough, and so they must be causing their schizophrenia and there was a big link to that. And that continues, they’re telling the women, “If you have a fever or enough pain that you would consider popping a Tylenol, then that’s on you, just either deal with it or be responsible for the fate of your child.” 

I think that’s what the medical establishment has been trying to avoid, is giving women options, and there are a lot of reasons you need to take care of that fever or you need to take care of that pain, and some of them have to do with the health of the child, the baby that they’re carrying, so … 

Rovner: Right, fever is also a potential cause of problems. 

Edney: Exactly. 

Rovner: All right. Well, in a health-related story that doesn’t seem like a health-related story, the Trump administration late last week announced a new $100,000 application fee for H-1B visas. Now, those are usually associated with tech workers, but it turns out that an awful lot of medical professionals, particularly doctors from other countries, use them to come here to fill residency positions that American medical school graduates don’t fill — often low-paying primary care slots in rural areas. And, according to reporting from your colleagues at Bloomberg, it seems that medical personnel might be exempt from this new fee, but it’s not clear how many hoops hospitals might have to jump through to get those exemptions. At best, it doesn’t feel like this was very thoroughly thought through, particularly for an administration that says that rural health is a priority. 

Edney: Right, yes. I think they may have been a little surprised by the amount of pushback from the hospital and doctor associations, saying, “We really rely on these to get doctors to rural areas.” And they almost immediately tried to massage that and say, “Oh, well, they could be included in exemptions.” But that’s all we know, “can be included” is not extremely reassuring. It’s not saying, “We’re giving you a blanket waiver for doctors,” or anything like that, and nobody knows, like you said, the hoops they might have to jump through. I would say it’s a start, and maybe they’re thinking about it, more aware of it, at this point. 

Rovner: Sandhya, is there any pushback from Congress? Can the president even do this? 

Raman: I think the pushback I’ve seen has been broader, not just on how this is going to affect hospitals that clearly cannot afford this in the same way that maybe some of the Big Tech companies may be able to. But I will be really interested when they come back just how lawmakers might look at this, because hospitals are the biggest employer in so many congressional districts, that if they’re pushing back, I could see people that normally don’t push back on this kind of thing saying, “If the biggest employer in my district is going to tank because of this,” it rises up as an issue for them. 

Rovner: On the other hand, we haven’t seen a lot of pushback from Congress for things that we expected to see pushback on, so I guess we’ll have to watch that space. 

Raman: Yeah. 

Rovner: Well, finally this week, there’s good news and bad news on drug prices, which President Trump has vowed to reduce by, and I looked this up to get the quote correct, 1,400% to 1,500%. He said it many other ways, by the way. The idea of his, quote, “most-favored-nation” executive order that he issued last spring is to get drugmakers to lower U.S. prices to those charged in other countries that have price controls that we don’t have. Well, Trump is getting half of what he wanted, according to Axios. Several large drugmakers say they’re going to equalize what they charge here and overseas, but not by lowering prices for Americans, rather by raising them for Europeans and others. On the other hand, there’s still a few more days until the Sept. 29 deadline for them to do this. Anna, are you hearing anything new on this? 

Edney: I haven’t heard anything new. I think we just saw, like you mentioned, what Bristol Myers Squibb did, which was a newer schizophrenia drug they raised, they said they were going to introduce that in the U.K. [United Kingdom] at the same price in the U.S., extremely convenient for the pharmaceutical companies to be able to have this reason to raise prices elsewhere. But then, of course, they can find reasons not to bring them down so far in the U.S., and we’ve seen — the only other company I can think of was Eli Lilly did this earlier this summer, saying they would do the same for their drug Mounjaro, and there was maybe some hoarding that started because people in Europe don’t want to pay the higher price. 

Rovner: Mounjaro being a diabetes drug that is also the weight loss drug. 

Edney: Right, right, yeah, so the weight loss drugs have seen a lot of ups and downs. But you’re right, there’s only a few days left, and it’s interesting that it hasn’t leaked … any kind of plan that the pharmaceutical companies are talking about or anything like that. Sometimes, I feel like because this administration is operating more by telling people through letters and demanding it at the podium rather than doing actual regulations — remember, the most-favored-nation policy did not work out well after challenged in court the first administration. So I think they’re often happy to get half of what they asked for in a way. But this could be tough, because it lets Trump say, “We’re no longer carrying all the water,” but it doesn’t let him say, “We decreased prices for the American people.” So we’ll have to see … 

Rovner: By 1,400% to 1,500%. 

Edney: Right, right, get those economists to figure that out. But we’ll just have to see what’s going on even … so much. The shutdown may take all his fire. 

Rovner: Yeah. This is one of those issues that is bipartisan, that it is popular on Capitol Hill, and that lawmakers keep saying they’re going to do something about, but so far, we’re not seeing it, are we? 

Raman: I think that there’s so much that they have on their plate right now and just so much that they have been at odds with each other right now, it’s something that would’ve gotten more attention in normal times, has just gotten really delayed at this point. 

Rovner: These are definitely not normal times. 

Raman: Yep. 

Rovner: All right. Well, that is the news for this week. Now, it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read too. Don’t worry, if you miss it; we will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Anna, why don’t you go first this week? 

Edney: Sure. So mine is in The Washington Post, and it’s: “Do State Abortion Laws Affect Women’s Recruiting? That’s Up to Athletes.” It was a really interesting look at basically how women athletes, specifically in basketball, and they discuss others lower down, are choosing college based on abortion laws — the states where they have less restrictive abortion laws, or more abortion rights, I guess I should say — then they’re tending to go there. And then, you have the schools more in the South, where they’re more restrictive, where they’re choosing not to go there for the four years of their college life. And it was something that I think was just a really interesting look at a topic that has been on everyone’s mind, but with so much going on, not exactly focusing on it. And it talks about other trends in college admissions and things too. So something to think about. 

Rovner: Yeah. I know we’ve talked a lot about health workers avoiding states with abortion restrictions. This is the first time I’ve seen this link to younger women and sports and college, and we’ll see whether some of the states react to that. Sandhya? 

Raman: My extra credit is called “Psychiatric Hospitals [Turn Away Patients Who Need Urgent Care. The Facilities Face Few Consequences],” and it’s in ProPublica by Eli Cahan. And I think what drew me to this is EMTALA [the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act] has been one of those things where we have been thinking about it a lot in terms of abortion, when we’ve seen it in the news in the last few years, it’s been very abortion-focused. But this story looks at a psychiatric hospital in Colorado that got taken to task for not providing stabilizing care to patients at risk for suicide, and CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] didn’t penalize them in reducing funding or imposing any penalties. It’s part of a broader thing, where over 90 psychiatric hospitals have violated EMTALA in the past 15 years. I don’t want to give away the whole thing of the story, but it goes more into this. 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a really good story. All right. My extra credit this week is from NBC News by my friend and former colleague Liz Szabo, and it’s called “RFK Jr. Has the Federal Vaccine Court in His Sights. Attacking It Could Threaten Vaccine Production in the U.S.” It’s a really good roundup about what’s likely to be the HHS secretary’s next target: the program that compensates the very small number of Americans who are injured or killed by vaccine side effects. There are risks to all vaccines, although they are very much outweighed by the benefits, and this program was created by Congress during the Reagan administration to compensate those who have suffered from those rare adverse reactions. 

The program was created to keep vaccine manufacturing alive in the United States because product liability suits were threatening to shut it down entirely, while the program also makes it easier for those who are injured to receive compensation. The program is far from perfect and it could use some revisions, which Congress has tried and failed to do over the last couple of decades. But it seems clear that that’s not what Secretary Kennedy has in mind. It’s a great preview of what the next likely battle is going to be in the vaccine wars. 

OK, that is this week’s show. Thanks this week to our editor, Stephanie Stapleton, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. 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. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can find me on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks these days? Sandhya? 

Raman: At X and on Bluesky: @SandhyaWrites. 

Rovner: Anna? 

Edney: Same places, @annaedney or @annaedney. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The agency “would like to get away” from assembling panels of experts to examine and vote on individual drugs, because “I don’t think they’re needed,” said George Tidmarsh, head of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. He relayed the message Tuesday at a meeting of health care product makers and Wednesday to an FDA advocacy group.

In addition to being redundant, Tidmarsh said, advisory meetings on specific drugs were “a tremendous amount of work for the company and for the FDA. We want to use that work and our time to focus on the big questions.”

The FDA’s advisory committees were created in their current form by a 1972 law aimed at expanding and regulating the government’s use of experts in technical decisions. They’re periodically summoned for advice, including to review evidence and vote on whether the FDA should approve drugs, vaccines, and medical devices, often when FDA officials face a difficult decision.

FDA actions have traditionally aligned with committee votes. A departure can provoke controversy and public debate, as was the case with the split 2021 decision on whether to approve the Biogen drug Aduhelm to treat Alzheimer’s disease.

The FDA approved the drug despite a “no” vote from its advisory committee, whose members felt the medicine did little to treat the disease. The conflict over Aduhelm laid bare the FDA’s struggle to reconcile pressure from industry and desperate patients with its rigorous evaluation of drug risks and benefits.

Tidmarsh said the committees would still be consulted on general issues like how to regulate different classes of drugs. But meetings on specific drugs, in which experts plow through piles of studies and hours of testimony from FDA and company officials, were mainly useful, he said, because they allowed the public to see how the FDA worked.

This month the FDA began publishing the “complete response letters” it sends to companies when it declines to approve their products. Releasing the letters, which previously required filing requests under the federal Freedom of Information Act, promotes a level of transparency akin to the advisory meetings’, Tidmarsh said.

Advisory committee meetings on individual drugs “are redundant when you have the complete review letters,” he told KFF Health News in a brief interview after appearing at the health care products conference.

Former FDA officials and academics who study the agency disagree. The meetings help FDA scientists make decisions and increase public understanding of drug regulation, and abandoning them doesn’t make sense, they said.

Tidmarsh’s reasoning is “hard to follow,” former FDA Commissioner Robert Califf told KFF Health News. “It’s extremely useful for people inside FDA to find out what other experts think before they make their final decisions. And it’s important to do that in a way that enables the public to understand the points of view.”

“Experts might ask questions of the company or FDA that neither of them thought of on their own,” said Holly Fernandez Lynch, an associate professor of bioethics and law at the University of Pennsylvania. “The public has few other opportunities to comment about FDA decisions.”

Spokespeople for FDA and the Health and Human Services Department did not respond to repeated requests for elaboration on Tidmarsh’s comments.

Califf at times disagreed with advisory committees as commissioner of the agency and once floated the idea that it might be better if they deliberated but did not vote on products. Still, while “maybe someone can come up with a better one, I always thought it was an amazing system,” he said.

The FDA is not obliged to ask the outside experts to review drugs and usually hasn’t. It calls on them mainly for important new types of medications or when a decision is especially tricky because of high demand for a product that may have limited value, Aduhelm being a classic example.

The advisory committees are “an important resource” for the FDA, said Sarah Ryan, a spokesperson for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. “They can play an important part of the rigorous human drug review process we have in the U.S.”

The committees are often asked to help settle disagreements within the FDA about how to move forward on a regulatory decision, said Reshma Ramachandran, a health services researcher and clinician at the Yale School of Medicine.

She and other researchers and former FDA officials praised FDA Commissioner Marty Makary’s decision to publish the complete response letters.

But the letters don’t obviate the need for committee meetings, said Peter Lurie, a former associate FDA commissioner who heads the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

“A disclosed complete response letter tells the public that a company’s application was rejected and why,” Lurie said. “An advisory committee meeting says to outside experts and the public, ‘Here’s what we’re thinking of doing and we’d love your input before we decide.’ Plainly, those are not equivalent.”

The changes Tidmarsh described are already playing out on the ground. The FDA has held only seven advisory committee meetings since Trump reentered the White House, compared with 22 over the same time frame last year. Officials say they will now release complete response letters as they are sent, and published a batch of 89 earlier in September.

Makary has to some extent replaced the advisory committees, whose members have traditionally been vetted for expertise and biases and which are required to deliberate in public, with panels of handpicked scientists who support his views on subjects such as hormone replacement therapy and antidepressants.

Diana Zuckerman, an FDA watchdog, attended the July hormone replacement therapy panel that considered the FDA’s black-box warning listing dangers of the treatment. Makary had wanted the warning removed and packed the panel with like-minded experts.

The event was hastily called with no opportunity for the public to review discussion materials or comment on them, she said.

“All that was transparent was that they didn’t want to hear from anyone who disagreed with them,” said Zuckerman, who leads the National Center for Health Research.

Before becoming commissioner, Makary pushed for more advisory committee meetings. In early 2022, he blasted the FDA’s decision to approve covid boosters for children ages 12 to 15 without consulting its Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. Makary posted on the social platform X at the time, “It is a slap in the face to science for @US_FDA to circumvent the standard convening of the expert advisory board.”

But Tidmarsh seems to disagree.

Instead of asking an advisory committee to vote in favor of or against a Duchenne muscular dystrophy drug, for example, he said the FDA would be better served by a committee studying the best way to evaluate such drugs, such as which outcomes, or end points, to measure. “Is this end point correct for Duchenne muscular dystrophy? That’s an important question that cuts across many different companies,” he told KFF Health News.

FDA official Vinay Prasad canceled a planned July advisory committee meeting to discuss a Duchenne drug made by the biotech company Capricor Therapeutics. The FDA later published its rejection, or “complete response letter,” to Capricor, which then published its own letter of response to the FDA. Prasad was later pushed out and rehired with fewer powers.

An advisory committee meeting could have worked through the drug’s risks and benefits in a calmer, public, less politicized atmosphere, Ramachandran said.

The FDA usually agrees with the votes of its several dozen advisory committees. A 2023 study found that the FDA agreed with 97% of “yes” votes and 67% of “no” votes.

That’s why Tidmarsh’s comments “come as a complete surprise,” said Genevieve Kanter, an associate professor of public policy at the University of Southern California, who wrote commentary accompanying the study. The FDA has postponed a lot of meetings this year, but “everyone thought it was temporary, with the transition and all the firings.”

“Another theory is that this decision is strategic,” she said, “in terms of consolidating power in the agencies so that you are no longer accountable to outside experts or the public.”

We’d like to speak with current and former personnel from the Department of Health and Human Services or its component agencies who believe the public should understand the impact of what’s happening within the federal health bureaucracy. Please message KFF Health News on Signal at (415) 519-8778 or get in touch here.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

Just days after his firing of the brand-new director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a defiant Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the U.S. secretary of health and human services, defended that action and others before a sometimes skeptical Senate Finance Committee. Criticism of Kennedy’s increasingly anti-vaccine actions came not just from Democrats on the panel but from some Republicans who are also medical doctors.

Meanwhile, members of Congress have only a few weeks left to complete work on spending bills or risk a government shutdown, and time is also running out to head off the large increases in premiums for Affordable Care Act health plans likely to occur with additional Biden-era government subsidies set to expire.

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

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

@jessiehellmann.bsky.social

Read Jessie's stories.

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

@sarahkarlin-smith.bsky.social

Read Sarah's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

@alicemiranda.bsky.social

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The FDA approved this year’s covid booster for people older than 65 and for younger people with serious illnesses. Previously, it had been recommended more broadly. All eyes will now turn to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which is scheduled to meet Sept. 18. Usually this panel would endorse these recommendations and perhaps offer more guidance on the booster’s use for specific populations. But it is not clear whether it will do so — or whether it might even impose more limitations.
• Kennedy’s firing of CDC Director Susan Monarez and the subsequent resignation of multiple senior scientists is raising questions about the agency’s future. Many staffers who were already on the fence about staying now are increasingly likely to leave. Many of these career scientists associate Kennedy’s history of harsh criticisms of public health workers with the recent CDC shooting in Atlanta. But since the shooting, Kennedy seems to have doubled down on his position.
• At the hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, even those Republicans who were critical of Kennedy were careful not to criticize President Donald Trump. There’s some speculation that this duality is meant to drive a wedge between Kennedy and the White House, and to communicate that the HHS secretary could be politically damaging.
• With vaccine policy in flux, red and blue states alike seem to be doing their own thing. Some, like California, Oregon, and Washington — which formed what they’re calling the West Coast Health Alliance — appear to be taking steps to protect access to vaccines. Red states could move in the other direction. For instance, this week, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo announced an effort to undo all statewide vaccine mandates, including those that require certain vaccines for children to attend school. If more states follow suit, it could lead to a geographic patchwork in which vaccine availability and requirements vary widely.
• This month is lawmakers’ last chance to reup the federal ACA tax subsidies. If Congress doesn’t act to extend them, an estimated 24 million people — many of whom live in GOP-controlled states like Georgia and Florida — will see significant increases in their health insurance premium costs. There’s some talk that Congress could opt for a short-term or limited extension that would postpone the pocketbook impact until after the midterm elections. But insurers are already factoring in the uncertainty as they set rates for the upcoming plan year.
• The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced a Medicare pilot program beginning next year that will use artificial intelligence to grant prior authorization decisions for certain procedures. There is irony here. United Healthcare and other private plans have already gotten into a lot of trouble for doing this, with AI systems often denying needed care.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’s Tony Leys, who discusses his “Bill of the Month” report about a woman’s unfortunate interaction with a bat — and her even more unfortunate interaction with the bill for her rabies prevention treatment.

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

Julie Rovner: ProPublica’s “Gutted: How Deeply Trump Has Cut Federal Health Agencies,” by Brandon Roberts, Annie Waldman, and Pratheek Rebala.

Jessie Hellmann: KFF Health News’ “When Hospitals and Insurers Fight, Patients Get Caught in the Middle,” by Bram Sable-Smith.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: NPR’s “Leniency on Lice in Schools Meets Reality,” by Blake Farmer.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Vox’s “Exclusive: RFK Jr. and the White House Buried a Major Study on Alcohol and Cancer. Here’s What It Shows,” by Dylan Scott.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The Washington Post’s “Florida Moves To End All School Vaccine Mandates, First in Nation To Do So,” by David Ovalle and Lori Rozsa.
• The 19th’s “Texas Passes Bill Banning Abortion Pills From Being Mailed to the State,” by Shefali Luthra.
• The New York Times’ “Medicare Will Require Prior Approval for Certain Procedures,” by Reed Abelson and Teddy Rosenbluth.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: On Capitol Hill, RFK Defends Firings at CDC

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

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: And Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call. 

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with my KFF Health News colleague Tony Leys, who reported and wrote the August “Bill of the Month” about a patient’s unfortunate run-in with a bat and an even more unfortunate run-in with the bill for rabies prophylaxis. But first, this week’s news.  

Well, it is safe to say that there has been quite a bit of health news since we last met in mid-August. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified before the Senate Finance Committee yesterday, which we will talk about in a moment. But first, I want to catch us up on what you might’ve missed. Our story starts, kind of, with the FDA’s [Food and Drug Administration’s] approval of this year’s covid boosters, which are only being licensed for those over age 65 and those who are younger but have at least one condition that puts them at high risk of serious illness if they contract the virus. That leaves out lots of people that many doctors think ought to be boosted, like pregnant women and children. Sarah, what’s supposed to happen after the FDA acts? The next step happens at CDC [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], right? 

Karlin-Smith: Correct. So right now the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet Sept. 17 to 18, 18 to 19, but about two weeks from now. And they would typically vote on sort of endorsing use of these vaccines and, again, have like sort of a second chance to weigh in on which populations they would be used for. And that’s often important for triggering insurance coverage without copays. And also many states rely on the CDC recommendations for various state laws that say, again, who can get the vaccine or whether you can get it via a pharmacist or only at a doctor’s office, do you need a prescription, and things like that. So the CDC and FDA, I would say, in general is a little bit behind this year. I could think a lot of people have been trying to go out and get these new shots even though those steps haven’t happened yet. 

Rovner: That’s right. I mean, it is early. Even if there was nothing else going on, there is that little bit of a lag between when FDA acts and when the CDC acts, right? 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, there usually is. I think in the past they’ve tried to have both FDA approval and the CDC act so that the vaccines could start rolling out more like late summer, early September. So they’re definitely behind, and there’s been a number of reports of covid kind of slowly rising as the summer winds down and school gets back in session. 

Rovner: Yeah, so there’s a lot of other things going on. Well, in the meantime, nothing that was supposed to happen has happened yet, and we still don’t know all the details, but it certainly appears that Susan Monarez, who was just confirmed by the Senate to lead the CDC a month ago, was fired after she refused to override her scientific advisers and approve the new restrictions on covid vaccine availability, even before the ACIP met. In turn, four top CDC leaders resigned as well, going public to warn that the agency is being politicized by the secretary. How much of a mess is the CDC in right now? And how long is it going to take to put the pieces back together? 

Karlin-Smith: I think they’re in a pretty bad place, because not only did they lose their director really quickly, but after she resigned, about I think it was eight or nine senior CDC leaders resigned last week as well. And so, really critical people to various parts of the operation that you don’t just replace very easily. And Kennedy has slotted in Jim O’Neill as the temporary director of the CDC and kind of indicated he wants to remake the agency. And I think there are questions as to how that remaking shapes both its priorities and how it handles public health throughout the U.S. 

Rovner: And of course, morale at CDC is awesome, in part because, as we discussed the last time we met, a gunman came and shot up the place, killing a policeman and leaving the staff pretty upset. And that gunman, who then took his own life, was later found to have had some discontent with vaccines. So things are just really bright and cheery there in Atlanta at the CDC. Alice, I see you nodding. 

Ollstein: These things kind of snowball, you know? I think there are likely to be a lot of staff who were already on the fence about staying and decided to stay because they trusted these pretty senior leaders with a lot of decades of expertise and institutional knowledge. And that was sort of the thread they were hanging on as well, at least: I’m with these people. And now that they’ve left, I think that could trigger a bigger exodus on top of the exodus that was already underway. 

Rovner: And it’s important to say — even though we say it, I think, every time — that these are career scientists who’ve worked for Democrats and Republicans over the years. These are not generally political people. They’re not political appointees. And they basically do their jobs. And until fairly recently, public health wasn’t this partisan, so it wasn’t that hard to be a career public health official just working for public health. That’s just not the case anymore, is it? 

Karlin-Smith: I think there’s been a lot of insult to injury added with what happened with the shooting at the CDC, because there is a sense that the kind of rhetoric that Kennedy in particular has used over the years, even before he came into HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services], on sort of his movement has sort of amplified the criticism of public health workers and put them in this situation where they’re dangerous. And Kennedy, instead of really acknowledging that and maybe apologizing or giving any sense that he was going to shift in a different direction, has actually really kind of doubled down on it. And even in some of the pieces he’s written recently about how he wants to reform the CDC, he kind of keeps criticizing the rank-and-file employees and so forth. So there’s a lot of tension between the political leadership and the career staff, I think, at this moment. 

Ollstein: And in normal times, most of the American public would not even know the names of these people. They’re not public figures. They’re just very behind-the-scenes scientists doing their work. And now their personal photos are being combed through and shared to attack them because they’ve criticized the administration. They’re getting threats. It’s just this whole level, like you said, of politicization that we haven’t seen before. 

Rovner: Well, so, in kind of a coincidence, Kennedy had already agreed to appear on Thursday before the Senate Finance Committee, which by the way doesn’t have jurisdiction over the CDC or the rest of the public health service. But no matter — a Senate hearing is a Senate hearing. And let’s just say it didn’t go that well for the secretary. Democrats were kind of withering in their criticism of Kennedy’s eight-month tenure so far. Here’s Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet. 

Sen. Michael Bennet: This is the last thing, by the way, our parents need when their kids are going back to school, is to have the kind of confusion and expense and scarcity that you’re creating as a result of your ideology. 

Rovner: Republicans weren’t that impressed, either, particularly the Republicans on the committee who are also doctors. [Sen.] Bill Cassidy, a doctor who’s on Finance but is also the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and is facing a primary challenge in Louisiana, seemed to tread pretty carefully. More surprising, at least to me, was Dr. Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, who’s also in the Senate leadership. 

Sen. John Barrasso: So over the last 50 years, vaccines are estimated to have saved 154 million lives worldwide. I support vaccines. I’m a doctor. Vaccines work. 

Rovner: I was super impressed that even the Republicans who criticized RFK were careful not to criticize President [Donald] Trump. In fact, there were several suggestions — this was clearly a talking point — that Trump should be given a Nobel Prize for his work overseeing Operation Warp Speed, just so the senators could kind of bifurcate their complaints. What impact, if any, is this hearing going to have on RFK’s future as secretary? 

Ollstein: Well, I think there was an attempt to, I think, what you just mentioned. That like dual criticism with praise of Trump was meant to drive a wedge and to get Trump to question RFK’s leadership. That does not seem to have worked so far. We don’t know what’s going to happen in the future, but I think it’s an attempt to get the message to Trump that RFK’s reputation and actions could be damaging to the administration overall. And there was some reporting that polling showing that most people do support vaccines was circulated amongst Republican members before the hearing. And so, I think it’s trying to, yeah, get the message that this is both damaging in a public health sense but also potentially damaging in a political sense as well. 

But so far, the reporting is that Trump is standing by RFK, that he liked how combative he was. And so I don’t know where those attempts to drive a wedge will go in the future, but like you said, it was notable that if folks like Barrasso, [Sen. Thom] Tillis, who’s not running for reelection, was also more vocally critical, and a couple others, not a lot. We’re not seeing a great dam breaking yet. But I think there’s more cracks than there used to be on the GOP side. 

Rovner: I did notice that Trump, he had a very strange Truth Social post earlier in the week that basically said that CDC is a mess and it has to be fixed. Kind of just Trump being the omniscient observer. And then, apparently at a dinner with tech titans after the hearing, he said that he had not watched the hearing but that he heard that Kennedy did well, which is not exactly what I would call a ringing endorsement. I feel like Trump is giving himself some runway to go either way depending on sort of how things continue to shake out. I see nodding. 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah. I saw a lot of people reposting that clip on social media last night who are frustrated with Kennedy and using it to try and ramp up their banks and say: Keep calling. Keep pressuring. This shows we have an opening. I think it’s really always hard to read the tea leaves with Trump and his language and words. He’s a harder person to interpret. But I also thought it was really interesting that in some ways Cassidy and some of the other Republicans were throwing RFK a bone and saying: This is your president. This was his greatest achievement. Can you support it? 

And RFK couldn’t even really twist himself into doing that. He sort of tried to, but he could never square it with the bulk of his remarks at the hearing, which were incredibly critical. MRNA vaccines and vaccines in general — he defended the massive cuts in this area for research. He defended people who have really said very untrue things about the harm caused by these vaccines. So in some ways I felt like Cassidy was trying to give him one more chance or something, and RFK couldn’t even take it when it was couched as this Trump achievement. 

Rovner: I can’t help but wonder if this is playing to Trump’s advantage because it’s distracting from Trump’s other problems, that perhaps Trump likes that there’s so much attention on this because it takes attention away from other things. 

Ollstein: Yeah. Although I do find the eagerness of Democratic members of Congress and other folks to wave away certain things as a distraction as a little bit questionable. This is all part of the agenda of the administration, and dismantling government bureaucracy is clearly a core, core part of the administration’s agenda, and so— 

Rovner: And flooding the zone. 

Ollstein: Exactly. Well, it might also serve as a distraction. I think that it should be considered a serious part of what they actually want to do as well. 

Rovner: So there were a couple of things that we learned about RFK Jr. from his confirmation hearings back in the winter. One is that he’s not at all deferential to elected officials, even calling them liars, which is pretty unheard of. And that he doesn’t really know how his department works. And it appears that eight months later, neither of those things have changed. How does he get away with being so rude? I mean, I’ve just never seen a Cabinet official who’s been so undeferential to the people who basically put him in office. Is it just me? 

Karlin-Smith: I think it’s part of the times where politics is really trumping behavior or policy, right? Even though there were a few Republicans that we’ve talked about who have kind of started to get frustrated with RFK and his vaccine policies. You saw at the beginning of the hearing, Chairman [Mike] Crapo was asked by the ranking Democrat, Sen. [Ron] Wyden, to basically swear Kennedy in because Wyden has felt like Kennedy has lied to the committee before. And Crapo just basically brushed that away and dismissed it. And I think, so, in many ways a lot of the Republicans on the committee endorsed Kennedy’s behavior kind of, maybe not overtly but indirectly, and that’s sort of been how they’ve been operating. It’s more of a political theater thing, and they’re OK with sort of this disrespect, of its sort of political fight that somebody on their side is taking up. 

Ollstein: I also think Congress’ unwillingness so far to actually sanction or take action in any way about anything RFK has done seems to have emboldened him. I think the fact that he has broken all these promises he made to Cassidy and other senators and there have been basically no consequences for him so far feeds into that. He kind of has a What are you going to do? attitude that was very evident in the hearing. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think that’s fair. Well, there were, as always, parochial question from senators about home state issues, but one topic I don’t think I expected to see come up as many times as it did was the future of the abortion pill, mifepristone, which is about to celebrate the 25th anniversary of its original approval by the FDA. Alice, what are you hearing about whether FDA is going to rein the drug back in, which is what a lot of these anti-abortion Republicans really want to see happen? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so I think there was nothing new in the hearing this week. What he said was what he’s been saying, that they’re looking into it, that they’re evaluating. He made no specific commitments. He gave no specific timelines. He said basically enough to keep the anti-abortion people thinking that they’re cooking up some restrictions but not explicitly promising that, either. And so I think we’re just where we were before. They continue to reference data put forward by an anti-abortion think tank that was not peer-reviewed and claiming that it is this solid scientific evidence, which it is not, about the risks posed by the pills, which many actual, credible, peer-reviewed studies have found to be very safe. And so we just don’t know what’s going to happen. I think any nationwide restrictions, which is what they’re mulling at the federal level, which would impact states where abortion is legally protected, that would be a potentially politically damaging move. And so it’s understandable why they might not want to pull that trigger right now. So, right. 

Rovner: And Trump has said, I mean, Trump has indicated that he does not really want to wade into this. 

Ollstein: Correct. But again, he’s also very good about not making hard promises in either direction and sort of keeping his options open, which is what they’re doing. The anti-abortion activists, this is not their only iron in the fire. This is just one of many strategies they have going on. They also have multiple pending lawsuits and court cases that are attempting to accomplish the same thing. They’re pursuing new policies at the state level, which we’ll probably talk about, Texas and others. 

Rovner: Next. 

Ollstein: And so yes, this pressure on FDA and HHS to use regulation to restrict the pills is only one of many ongoing efforts. 

Rovner: Well, you have anticipated my next question, which is that while we are on the subject of the abortion pill, Texas, because it is always Texas, has a new bill on its way to the governor for a signature to try to outlaw telemedicine prescribing of the abortion pill. What exactly would this Texas law do? And would it work? Because, obviously, this has been the biggest loophole about stopping abortion in these states that have banned abortion, is that people are still able to get these pills from other states via telemedicine. 

Ollstein: Yeah. So in one sense, nothing’s changed. Abortion was already illegal in Texas, whether you use a pill or have a procedure. And so this is just layered on top of that. The groups who backed this explicitly said the attempt is to have a chilling effect. What they’re hoping is that no lawsuits are even needed, because this just scares people away from ordering pills and scares groups in other states away from sending pills. One concern that I saw raised is that the law criminalizes simply the shipping of the pills. Somebody doesn’t even have to take them for a crime to have been committed. 

And so that’s raising concerns that anti-abortion activists will do kind of sting operations, sort of entrapment-y things where they order the pills solely in the interest of bringing a lawsuit. Because there is a cash bounty that you can get for filing a lawsuit — there’s an incentive. So that’s a concern. And then just the general concern of a chilling effect and people who are using less safe means than these pills to terminate their pregnancies out of fear, which studies have shown is already on the rise, people injuring themselves taking herbs and other substances, chemicals. So that’s a concern as well. 

Rovner: We’ll continue to watch this, but back to vaccine policy. With the status of federal vaccine recommendations in limbo, states appear to be going their own way. Blue states California, Washington, and Oregon are banding together in a consortium to make official recommendations in the absence of federal policy, and several blue-state governors are acting unilaterally to make sure covid vaccines, at least, remain available to most people. At the same time, some red states are going the other way, with Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, who we have talked about before, now vowing to get rid of all vaccine requirements for schoolchildren. Sarah, that would be a really big deal, right? 

Karlin-Smith: Right. I think the big fear then is that the school requirements is kind of what gets us to close to, in many cases, universal vaccine uptake in the country, because everybody needs their kids to be in school. Unless you’re homeschooled, you really must follow these vaccine requirements. And it not only hurts the kids who don’t end up getting vaccinated individually, but it can really hurt the idea of herd immunity and the protection we need for these diseases to disappear in the community. So there’s— 

Rovner: And protection for people who can’t be immunized for some reason. 

Karlin-Smith: Right. Who either can’t be immunized or don’t have an adequate response to the immunization because they’re going through cancer treatment or they have some other medical reason that their body is immunocompromised. 

Rovner: So, I mean, is this going to end up like abortion, where it’s availability absolutely depends on where you live? 

Karlin-Smith: I think that’s hard to say. I think that a policy like what Florida is trying to implement could very quickly and easily go wrong, I think, and be reversed, as we’ve seen, like what’s happening in Texas now, with measles outbreaks. You know you only need just very small fractions of decreases in vaccination to create huge public health crises in places. And so I think it would be more sort of visible, in a way, to some of these states and their populations, the potential harm that could be caused, than maybe it is to them the abortion harm. But we definitely are seeing some sense of, right, the Democratic-controlled states trying to implement policies that help people get better access to vaccines, even when the federal government is trying to maybe harm that, and red states not caring as much. 

So there is going to be some more of a patchwork. And I feel like, in talking to just sort of people outside of the health policy space, there is a lot of confusion about: Where can I get my covid vaccine? Am I going to have to pay? Do I qualify? Especially being in D.C., which has less generous, I guess, pharmacy laws, because of this. So people are confused. If I go to Maryland, which is really close, does that matter even though I live in D.C.? And it’s just all these things we kind of know end up leading to less people getting vaccinated. Because even if they want to do it, the hurdles end up driving people away. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think something you’d said earlier about the fact that we’re seeing kind of a covid spike, so people are anxious to get covid vaccines, I think, a little bit earlier than normal. It’s usually kind of a fall thing and it’s only the beginning of September, but I think there’s just this combination, this confluence of events that has a lot of people very excited about this right now. 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I think it does. And covid has been, I think there’s been lots of hope in the public health world that covid would become a little bit like the flu, where we could predict a little bit more when it would really peak and get everybody vaccinated around the same time as they’re getting flu vaccines. Just again, because we know when we make it easier on people to get vaccinated, if you could just one-and-done it, it would be good. Unfortunately, covid has tended to also still have summer peaks, and this year again it’s kind of a late summer peak. And a lot of people, including seniors, are still recommended really actually to get two vaccines a year. So many people are kind of coming due for that second update right now. 

Rovner: Well, we’ll keep watching that space. Moving on, as we kind of pointed out already, Congress is back in town, with just a couple weeks to go before the start of fiscal 2026 on Oct. 1. This was the year Congress was really, truly going to get all of its spending bills passed in time for the start of the new year. How’s that going, Jessie? 

Hellmann: It’s going great. I’m just kidding. There’s a lot of friction on the Hill right now. The White House budget chief is talking about doing more clawbacks of foreign aid, which is frustrating both Democrats and Republicans. It’s about $5 billion, and we’re seeing Democrats kind of start to put their neck out there a little more than they did earlier in the year when they were also kind of making noise about government funding. And they’re now saying that Republicans are going to have to go this alone and they’re not going to support partisan spending bills. So it’s kind of difficult to see where we go from here. And then— 

Rovner: Are we looking at a shutdown on Oct. 1? I mean, that’s what happens if the spending bills aren’t done. 

Hellmann: It’s hard to say. There might be a short-term spending bill, but anything longer-term than that, it seems really difficult at this point. And there are just massive differences between the health bills that the House came out with and the Senate came out with. I mean, there’s differences in all the other appropriations bills, too, but I was just going to focus on health. 

Rovner: Yes, please. 

Hellmann: The Senate bill would allow an increase for HHS, and the House bill would cut it pretty significantly. So it’s kind of hard to see how they could do anything more substantive when there’s so much light between the two. 

Rovner: Yeah. I mean, on the one hand, we have both the Senate and the House subcommittee that’s marked up the Labor HHS [Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies] appropriation on record as not supporting at least the very deep cuts to the National Institutes of Health that were proposed by President Trump. But on the other hand, as you mentioned, we still have the administration, primarily budget office chief Russell Vought, making the case that the administration doesn’t have to spend money that Congress appropriates. And from all we can tell, at least as of now, there’s a lot of money that won’t be spent as of the end of the fiscal year, despite the fact that that is illegal. It’s known as a pocket rescission, a term I think we’re about to hear a lot more about. Alice, you referred to this earlier: Is Congress just going to quietly ignore the fact that the administration is usurping their power? 

Ollstein: I think that in many areas of politics, there is a faction that wants to play hardball and really use whatever leverage is possible and there’s a faction that wants to play nice and try to get what they can get by negotiation. And I think both parties always fear being blamed for shutdowns, and so that drives a lot of it. But I think there’s mounting frustration with Democratic leadership about not playing hardball enough. I mean, the jokes I hear are Democrats like to bring a spreadsheet to a gunfight, just seen as being unwilling, in the face of what many see as lawlessness, being unwilling to really put a check on that using the levers they have, including this federal spending. But I think we’ve seen that there are risks no matter what they do, and so I think people make reasonable points about the pros and cons of various strategies. 

Rovner: Well, we know that [Sen.] Susan Collins, who’s now the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, is very, very concerned — because Susan Collins is always very, very concerned. But she’s the one whose power is basically being thwarted at this point. People have gotten a lot of gray hair waiting for Susan Collins to stand up and be combative, but one would think if there was ever a time for her to do it, this would be it. Jessie, are we seeing, I was going to say, any indication that the appropriators are going to say, Hey, this is our job and our constitutional responsibility, and you’re supposed to do what we say when it comes to money? 

Hellmann: They are saying these things. I feel like we are seeing more Senate Republicans, at least, express discomfort with what the Trump administration is doing, saying things like: This is Congress’ job. We have the power of the purse. And then they are passing some of these spending bills through committee. But what else are they supposed to do? Unless Susan Collins wants to get on Fox News and start screaming about government funding, which I don’t really see happening and I don’t know if it would be effective, you kind of just wonder: What other options do they have at this point? 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, we’ll sort of see how this plays out over the next few weeks. Meanwhile, it’s not just the spending bills that Congress is facing deadlines for. This month is basically the last chance to re-up those, quote, “expanded subsidies” for Affordable Care Act plans before the sticker shock hits 24 million people in the face. Not only are premiums going up by an average of 18% from this year to next — that’s for a lot of reasons: increasing costs of health care, tariffs, drug prices — but eliminating those additional subsidies, or actually letting them expire, will cause some people to have to pay double or triple what they pay now. And it’s going to hit folks in red states like Georgia and Florida and Texas even harder because more folks there are on the Affordable Care Act plans, because those states didn’t expand Medicaid. Do Republicans not understand what’s about to happen to them? 

Hellmann: I think they understand, but they keep acting like there’s no urgency to the situation. They keep saying: We still have time. We have till the end of the year. Which I guess is technically true, but we’re already seeing insurers proposing these giant rate hikes. And it’s not easy to just go back and make changes to some of this. I guess the idea is— 

Rovner: So they really don’t have until the end of the year, though. Because people are going to get, they’re going to see the next year’s premiums that they have to start signing up in November. So, I mean, they basically have this month. 

Ollstein: If there’s uncertainty, they’re going to price very conservatively, aka high. They don’t want to be left holding the bag. And so, yeah, you and Jessie are exactly right that there isn’t time. These decisions are being made now. Even if they pass something to kick the can until after the midterms, I think some damage will already have been done. 

Rovner: Yeah. Jessie, I cut you off, though. I mean, the idea is that sort of their one chance to maybe do this before people actually start to get these bills, or at least see what they’re going to have to pay, would be wrapped into this end-of-fiscal-year continuing resolution. And maybe they can kick the appropriations down the road until November or December, but they can’t really kick the question of the subsidies down the road until November or December. 

Hellmann: Yeah. I think something would have to happen really quickly. We’re seeing some politically vulnerable Republicans, in the House, specifically, say that they want at least a year-long extension. It’s just a really difficult issue. We know, obviously, the Freedom Caucus is already making threats about it. They hate the ACA, maybe more than anything. It’s going to be really interesting how this turns out. I’ve also heard that maybe there might be a paired-back version of an extension that they could do, maybe messing with some of the income parameters. But I don’t know if that kind of compromise would be enough unless Republicans work with Democrats, which as we already said is complicated for other reasons. So it’s just a mess right now. 

Rovner: I love September on Capitol Hill. All right, finally this week Medicare has announced it will launch a pilot program next January to test the use of artificial intelligence to perform prior authorization for Medicare fee-for-service patients in six states. The program is aimed at just a handful of services right now that are considered to be often wasteful and of dubious value to patients. So, honestly, what could possibly go wrong here? This is a serious question. I mean, isn’t using AI to do prior authorization what got a lot of these private health plans in trouble over the last year? 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, they did. UnitedHealthcare I think is sort of infamous for that. There was a lot of irony when they first announced this concept of doing a little more prior auth, essentially, in Medicare. It came right after they made another announcement where they were trying to say, We’re actually going to crack down on prior authorization for a health plan. So there’s a bit of, and I think they were trying to not have the, in this second announcement, not have the words “prior auth,” so that they kind of could get wins on both levels. Because I think they know that prior authorization is generally not popular with health consumers. People see it as kind of a barrier to care that their doctor has said they need and is largely stopped because of cost reasons. And then I think once you add in this idea that artificial intelligence is doing it, not a human being, I think people have less trust that it’s being done in the proper way and really that they’re stopping inappropriate care. 

Rovner: Well, to paraphrase RFK Jr. at the Senate Finance hearing, who said many times, both things can be true, even if they are contradictory. All right, that is this week’s news, or at least as much as we have time for. Now we’ll play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Tony Leys, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast KFF Health News’ Tony Leys, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News “Bill of the Month.” Tony, welcome back. 

Tony Leys: Glad to be here. Thanks, Julie. 

Rovner: So this month’s patient got a literal mouthful when she went to photograph the night sky in Arizona. Who is she and what happened? 

Leys: While Erica Kahn was taking photos at Glen Canyon last summer, a bat flew up, landed on her, and jammed itself between her camera and her face. Kahn screamed, as anyone would, and the bat went into her mouth. It only was in there for a few seconds, and she didn’t feel a bite. But she feared it could have infected her with a rabies virus, which bats frequently carry. 

Rovner: Yeah, not a great thing. So as with any run-in with a bat, Erica wisely reported to the nearest emergency room for preventive rabies treatment, which we know from previous “Bills of the Month” can total many thousands of dollars. How much did her treatment cost? 

Leys: Nearly $21,000, mostly for a series of vaccinations and other treatments, over the course of two weeks, aimed at preventing the deadly virus from gaining a foothold. 

Rovner: Yikes. 

Leys: Yikes, indeed. 

Rovner: Now, the problem here wasn’t so much that she was charged as what her insurance status was. What was her health insurance status? 

Leys: Well, Kahn had been laid off from her job as a biomedical engineer in Massachusetts, and she had turned down the COBRA [Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act] plan, which would’ve allowed her to stay on her employer’s insurance plan. The plan would’ve cost her about $650 a month, which seemed too much for her. And she was a young, healthy adult who was confident that she would quickly find a new job with health insurance. She also thought that if she became ill in the meantime, she could buy a private plan that would cover preexisting health conditions. 

Rovner: Yeah. That was the big problem, right? 

Leys: Right. 

Rovner: So what did she do? And then what happened? 

Leys: So before she went to the hospital for rabies prevention treatment, she signed up for a policy she found online. The policy, which she thought was full-fledged health insurance, apparently wasn’t. But she says the company selling it told her it would cover treatment of a life-threatening emergency, which this sure seemed to be. But the company later declined to cover any of the bills, citing a 30-day waiting period for coverage. 

Rovner: Yeah. Now, I mean, you can’t generally buy any kind of insurance after an insurable event happens. You can’t buy fire insurance the day after a fire or car insurance the day after an accident. Health insurance is no different. Although in her case, she could have actually resumed her previous coverage through COBRA, right? How would that have worked? 

Leys: So after you lose coverage from an employer, you generally have 60 days to decide whether to sign up for COBRA coverage, which would be retroactive to the day your old policy lapsed. Khan was within that period when the bat went in her mouth. So she could have retroactively bought COBRA coverage, but she didn’t know about that option. 

Rovner: Yeah. A lot of people, they initially lose their job or they leave their job and they don’t take COBRA, because it’s really expensive, as a rule — because it’s employer insurance and employer insurance is usually pretty generous — and they think they don’t need it. But this is one of those cases where she actually probably could have gotten it covered, right? 

Leys: Right, right. And in fairness, I’d never heard about that 60-day thing, either, and I’ve covered this, so— 

Rovner: I had, but I was there when COBRA was started. So what’s the takeaway here about people who don’t have insurance or think they can buy it at the last minute? 

Leys: Well, two things. One is you should have health insurance. 

Rovner: Because you never know when a bat’s going to fly in your mouth. 

Leys: And that a bat in the mouth does not count as a preexisting condition. 

Rovner: True. 

Leys: We know that now. 

Rovner: And what happened with this bill? 

Leys: She is still trying to get it worked out. 

Rovner: And presumably she’s going to be paying it off for some time to come. 

Leys: That’s what it sounds like. Yep. 

Rovner: But she won’t get rabies. 

Leys: Nope. 

Rovner: So happy ending of a sort. Tony Leys, thank you so much. 

Leys: Thank you for having me. Appreciate it. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. And now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We’ll put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Sarah, you were the first to come up with your extra credit this week. Why don’t you tell us about it? 

Karlin-Smith: I picked a piece that ran in NPR from KFF’s Blake Farmer, “Leniency on Lice in Schools Meets Reality,” because it’s about the one-year anniversary of my family getting lice from school. And I actually was exposed to this new reality, which is since I was in school, and it’s, I guess, a broader national policy that they no longer kick kids out of school once you see lice and make it kind of difficult before you can go back to school. And I guess the public health rationale is generally that lice is actually, while it’s quite itchy, it’s not really harmful. So trying to think about the best way to cause the least harm, letting kids stay in school while you treat the infection is seen as most appropriate now. 

But there’s been, as a story goes into, some pushback from parents who feel that then it’s just getting them in these cycles where they’re constantly getting lice and having to deal with it. And dealing with getting the shampoos and stuff for lice can be kind of costly. So I thought it was a slightly lighter health care story for people to think about in these times. 

Rovner: Yeah. Risks and benefits. Classic case of risks and benefits. Alice. 

Ollstein: Well, this is definitely more on the risks than the benefits side of things, but I have a very good piece from Vox. It’s an exclusive. It’s called “RFK Jr. and the White House Buried a Major Study on Alcohol and Cancer.” And so they talked to these scientists who were commissioned to compile all of the data about the risk of drinking alcohol to having cancer. And it was compiling high-quality data that was already out there. And it really shows that no amount of drinking is totally safe. Even a very small, moderate amount of drinking includes a cancer risk, and that goes up the more you drink. 

And now, according to this report, the administration is not going to publish this. The authors turned it in in March, and they’ve just been sitting on it and they said they have no plans to publish it. And this is coming as the alcohol industry does a lot of lobbying to try to prevent stuff like this from being put out in the public consciousness. I just found this really fascinating. Already the younger generations are drinking a lot less. And so there does seem to be a growing awareness of the health risks of even moderate drinking. But I think that anything that keeps people from seeing this information is worrying, although this report did say that they are planning on publishing it in a peer-reviewed medical journal, which they were always planning anyways. But not having the federal government’s backing is a big deal. 

Rovner: It’s not exactly “radical transparency” is what they’ve been talking about. Jessie. 

Ollstein: And it’s not exactly “MAHA” [“Make America Healthy Again”]. They’re talking MAHA. They’re talking about lifestyle stuff. They’re talking about what you eat, but apparently not about what you drink. 

Rovner: Jessie. 

Hellmann: My story is from KFF Health News, from Bram Sable-Smith. It’s called “When Hospitals and Insurers Fight, Patients Get Caught in the Middle.” It is about what happens when providers and insurers have contract disputes. The one example in this story is in Missouri, and it kind of focuses on this family that’s caught in the middle of a dispute between the University of Missouri Health Care system and Anthem. And it means patients don’t get care. There’s not a lot of protections for them. There are provisions that were in the No Surprises Act kind of intended to ensure there was some continuity of care in these situations. But at least for this couple, they weren’t really able to access those protections. So unclear if those are working as intended. 

I just thought it was really interesting because it’s not a new problem, but it’s definitely something that we are hearing more and more. It just happened in the D.C .area a few weeks ago. It just happened in New York. And it kind of raises questions about: What are policymakers going to do about this? They complain about rising health care costs, but they don’t often do very much. They complain about competition and consolidation, and this is one of the effects of that. People lose access to care. So I thought this was a really interesting story. 

Rovner: Yeah. These are all the policy issues that policymakers are not working on but could be. My extra credit this week is from ProPublica. It’s called “Gutted: How Deeply Trump Has Cut Federal Health Agencies,” by Brandon Roberts, Annie Waldman, Pratheek Rebala, and Sam Green. And it’s a deep data dive that found that more than 20,500 workers, or about 18% of the Health and Human Services Department workforce, have left or been pushed out in the first month of Trump 2.0. That includes more than a thousand regulators and safety inspectors and 3,000 scientists and public health specialists. The agency, in its official response to the story, said, quote, “Yes, we’ve made cuts — to bloated bureaucracies that were long overdue for accountability.” I guess we will have to see if America gets healthier. In the meantime, it’s good to have some data on where we were and now where we are at HHS. 

OK, that’s this week’s show. Thanks to our fill-in editor this week, Stephanie Stapleton, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. 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. As always, you can email us your comments or questions at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can find me on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you guys hanging out these days? Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: Kind of everywhere. At Bluesky, X, LinkedIn — @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith. 

Rovner: Alice. 

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

Rovner: Jessie. 

Hellmann: I am on X, @jessiehellman. I’m also on LinkedIn. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The pharma giant will acquire the treatment, called bretisilocin, for up to $1.2 billion, including an upfront payment and development milestones. Meanwhile, Gilgamesh will spin off a new company called Gilgamesh Pharma Inc. for its staff and other drug programs.

The move builds on AbbVie’s growing focus on neuroscience. The company had already signed a collaboration agreement with Gilgamesh. Last year, it also acquired Cerevel Therapeutics for $9 billion, but following the closing of the deal, the key schizophrenia drug at the center of the acquisition failed to show benefits in key trials.

Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…

The Host

Emmarie Huetteman
KFF Health News

Emmarie Huetteman, senior editor, oversees a team of Washington reporters, as well as “Bill of the Month” and KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” She previously spent more than a decade reporting on the federal government, most recently covering surprise medical bills, drug pricing reform, and other health policy debates in Washington and on the campaign trail. 

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s announcement that the federal government will cancel nearly $500 million in mRNA research funding is unnerving not only for those who develop vaccines, but also for public health experts who see the technology behind the first covid-19 shots as the nation’s best hope to combat a future pandemic.

And President Donald Trump is demanding that major pharmaceutical companies offer many American patients the same prices available to patients overseas. It isn’t the first time he’s made such threats, and drugmakers — who scored a couple of wins against Medicare negotiations in the president’s tax and spending law — are unlikely to volunteer to drop their prices.

This week’s panelists are Emmarie Huetteman of KFF Health News, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

@sarahkarlin-smith.bsky.social

Read Sarah's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

@SandhyaWrites.bsky.social

Read Sandhya's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Explaining the decision to cancel some mRNA vaccine funding, a priority for vaccine critics, Kennedy falsely claimed that the technology is ineffective against respiratory illnesses. Researchers have been making headway into mRNA vaccines for maladies such as bird flu and even cancer, and the Trump administration’s opposition to backing vaccine development weakens the prospects for future breakthroughs.
• Trump’s insistence that big-name drugmakers voluntarily lower their prices underscores how few tools the presidency has to deliver results on this important pocketbook issue for many Americans. Medicare’s ability to negotiate drug prices took a hit under Trump’s big tax-and-spending law, which included two provisions advocated by the pharmaceutical industry that would delay or exclude some expensive drugs from the dealmaking process.
• A year after Trump promised on the campaign trail to secure coverage of in vitro fertilization, the White House reportedly is not planning to compel insurers to pay for those pricey reproductive services — a change that would require an act of Congress and could raise costs overall.
• And with Congress back home for its August recess and a late September deadline looming, the annual government funding process is in progress — but unlikely to resolve quickly or cleanly. Senate appropriators are further along in their work than usual, but the House of Representatives has yet to release its version, which is expected to cut deeper and hit social issues like abortion harder.

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

Emmarie Huetteman: KFF Health News’ “New Medicaid Federal Work Requirements Mean Less Leeway for States,” by Katheryn Houghton and Bram Sable-Smith. 

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Slate’s “Confessions of a Welfare Queen,” by Maria Kefalas. 

Sandhya Raman: CQ Roll Call’s “Sweden’s Push for Smokeless Products Leads Some To Wonder About Risks,” by Sandhya Raman. 

Lauren Weber: The New York Times’ “‘Hot Wasps’ Found at Nuclear Facility in South Carolina,” by Emily Anthes. 

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The Washington Post’s “How RFK Jr.’s mRNA Crackdown Affects Vaccinemaking and Future Pandemics,” by Carolyn Y. Johnson and Lauren Weber.
• The AP’s “Fact Focus: Trump Says He’s Cut Drug Prices By Up to 1,500%. That’s Not Possible,” by Melissa Goldin.
• The Washington Post’s “Medicare, Medicaid Plan To Experiment with Covering Weight Loss Drugs,” by Paige Winfield Cunningham.
• The Washington Post’s “White House Has No Plan To Mandate IVF Care, Despite Campaign Pledge,” by Riley Beggin and Jeff Stein.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Kennedy Cancels Vaccine Funding

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

Emmarie Huetteman: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Emmarie Huetteman, a senior editor for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Aug. 7, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. Here we go. 

Today, we’re joined via video conference by Lauren Weber of The Washington Post. 

Lauren Weber: Hey, everybody. 

Huetteman: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Sandhya Raman: Good morning. 

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody. 

Huetteman: It’s August, and here in the nation’s capital that means Congress has flown the coop, and a lot of the federal city has gone with them. No interview this week. And you may be wondering why you’re hearing my voice instead of the incomparable Julie Rovner. Julie’s out this week having surgery to repair her broken wrist. Good news: She’s on the mend and she’ll be back in your podcast feed very soon. Get well soon, Julie. Let’s get to the news. 

On Tuesday, the Trump administration announced that the secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has canceled almost $500 million in federal grants and contracts to develop mRNA vaccines. That technology, of course, was responsible for the first covid vaccines, and researchers have been working on new ways to use mRNA, including against bird flu and even cancer. But in explaining his decision, Kennedy made false claims about mRNA vaccines, including that they do not protect against respiratory illnesses. Kennedy’s opposition to the covid vaccine, in particular, is well-documented. But before becoming health secretary, he advocated for federal officials to revoke approval for mRNA-based covid shots. 

Sarah, you’re our pharmaceutical industry expert. What will this mean for vaccine development? Without this government funding, can that research continue? 

Karlin-Smith: I think people are really concerned, particularly about the speed of vaccine development for pandemic situations. That’s a classic market failure in that companies aren’t that incentivized to work on developing products for hypothetical situations that may never come to pass, but we obviously want to be prepared for strains of the flu that can be particularly harmful and stuff. So I think that’s where people are really concerned. 

I think, in general, this is just another mark in some of the vaccine actions that have taken place since this administration took over that makes people a little more nervous about just investing in the vaccine field, whether it’s mRNA or vaccines in general. FDA has made some unusual decisions around the indications for covid vaccines moving forward. The [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s] whole [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] has changed. So I do think there’s broader concern beyond the mRNA vaccines and our need to have this technology to really prepare for a pandemic about how confident industry will be in the places they normally would invest money on their own. 

Huetteman: Lauren, you had a story yesterday about how Kennedy’s decision is intensifying concerns about our ability to fight future pandemics. Can you tell us what you’re hearing from public health experts? 

Weber: Yeah. We spoke to a number of public health experts and vaccine experts, mRNA experts, who said, Look, this is the technology that you want to be spry, to be able to alter something, to fight potentially a bird flu. It’s also used in revolutionary ways to fight maybe even cancer here in the future. There’s a lot of fear about how this could have a chilling effect, as Sarah was pointing out, on the development pipeline and what that means in a pandemic situation. 

I do think it’s important to note that just this morning, Trump was asked about this and said he was going to have a meeting on it at noon. Not sure exactly what that means, but potentially that could be something. Robert Malone, who’s an ACIP member, sent out an email trying to rally MAHA [“Make America Healthy Again”] supporters to make sure that they backed up Kennedy’s decision. 

I think it’s also important to take a step back and look at Kennedy’s past remarks on mRNA, as you alluded to. This is a man who falsely called the covid vaccine “the deadliest ever made.” He’s described it as a poison in the past. Some anti-vaccine factions of MAHA have really been pushing to try and limit access to mRNA technology. You’ve seen this also in some Republican and far-right states, that are more right. You’ve seen some legislation suggested to remove access to mRNA technology. There’s a big question among some of the folks we talked to on if this is a bit of a signal to the base. 

Karlin-Smith: I was going to say, ironically, the mRNA vaccines was probably the biggest success of the Trump administration’s first term in office. He was instrumental in spearheading the fast development of the vaccines for covid. 

Huetteman: Right, Operation Warp Speed. Interesting how far we’ve come. To be clear, this isn’t all of the government’s mRNA contracts, right? This is just a piece of the research funding? 

Karlin-Smith: This is a piece of it coming through BARDA [the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority], which is particularly designed to help fill those market gaps in pandemic preparedness, but they’ve also cut other mRNA vaccine contracts previously in this administration, including a big one around bird flu, which people are concerned about right now. I’ve even seen some media reports where people, researchers in the cancer but mRNA space, were concerned about grants just being flagged just because they had the terminology. It’s not everything, but I think there’s certainly fears that this is just a step in a bigger process that is problematic. 

Huetteman: Absolutely. We’ll be keeping an eye on that. And vaccine contracts aren’t the only thing that President Trump’s team is undoing this week. Under a new federal rule, VA hospitals would no longer be able to perform abortions in cases of rape, incest, or health endangerment. You may remember that the Biden administration introduced that policy at the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2022, after the Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to an abortion. The policy has allowed veterans and their relatives to obtain abortion services even while they are stationed in states with restrictions. 

Meanwhile, lots of news to get to this week. In prescription drug news, late last week, President Donald Trump sent letters to more than a dozen drugmakers insisting that they drop their prices within 60 days. Specifically, the president demanded that pharmaceutical companies offer many American patients the same prices that drugmakers charge abroad. Over the weekend, Trump told reporters that his administration is dramatically lowering drug prices, “up to 1,500%,” he said — which, well, I think that technically means the drugmaker would pay you. 

Anyway, Trump told drugmakers that if they don’t lower drug prices, “We will deploy every tool in our arsenal.” What can the president do to force drugmakers to comply? 

Karlin-Smith: I think, in some ways, he doesn’t have as many tools in the toolbox as he probably would like to think. At least, not ones that are making the industry particularly fearful right now. He doesn’t have the power to just issue a regulation saying, “The Medicare-Medicaid reimbursement rates are tied to the rates countries are paying abroad.” That would have to be through legislation. And I think there are reasons that both Republicans and Democrats don’t really like this most-favored-nation approach to drug pricing. There is some sort of limited authority for them to do a demonstration project through CMS’ [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’] Medicare-Medicaid Innovation Center. They could come up with a test of this in some kind of limited area. They tried to start implementing that [in] his last term and they got scuttled by lawsuits, so we’ll see if they have a way to avoid that problem this time. 

But the ironic thing is that when the administration issued this executive order in May calling for this most-favored-nation pricing, he set this 30-day-ish deadline of saying, OK, we’ll tell you what prices we want, you guys lower them. If not, we’re going to do rulemaking. One thing that came up when he issued this letter, these letters on Friday, giving industry another 60 days is, Well, why are they not just going through with some kind of rulemaking or next steps? It almost seemed to some people like almost a more muted threat because they haven’t done the follow-through yet or come up with what the follow-through is here.  

Huetteman: Now, where is the Medicare’s drug negotiation ability in this equation? Why isn’t the president doing more to leverage Medicare’s power to negotiate at this point? 

Weber: Well, that’s really interesting because in the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” there were two provisions that a lot of people missed that limited the ability to negotiate on some key drugs, which has been estimated to likely cost the American taxpayer and the government billions of dollars over the next couple years. 

Huetteman: Yeah, the CBO says that those changes will cost Medicare at least $5 billion in missed savings over 10 years. 

Weber: Yes, that’s what’s called effective lobbying. Essentially, what happened is some pharma companies were able to tuck in provisions that key drugs, I think it was Keytruda, I’m not sure if I’m pronouncing that right, or Keytruda, which is used to treat cancer, it’s a drug by Merck. It had $17.9 billion in U.S. sales in 2024. That’s the kind of drug that they won’t be able to negotiate prices on for a bit.  

Huetteman: Yeah, that’s right. Of course, that also means that Medicare patients will be subject to paying their percentage of those higher prices as well. On top of talking about this CBO score there, we’re talking about drug prices that real people are paying for their expensive cancer drugs right now. I guess I’m curious why Trump isn’t using the negotiation process in order to lower those drug prices? 

Raman: I would add that something that makes this more difficult is that Trump has been very back-and-forth about a lot of his opinions on different things that he’s going to do throughout the last several months in this process. Even if you look at something like how we would deal with tariffs on the pharmaceutical industry, we’ve been a little bit all over the place. I think even if he’s not demonstrating the clear idea of which way he’d want to go, it makes it a little bit harder for the regulators, whether it would be in Congress or through the FDA, to do anything, given that he’s been changing a lot what he’s hinting at wanting to do.  

Huetteman: Yeah, that’s right. Actually, Sarah, you brought up the CMS innovation option. There’s a story out about this this week. The Washington Post reports that the Trump administration is considering using that center to do a pilot project to expand access to GLP-1 drugs for weight loss purposes by allowing state Medicaid and Medicare Part D plans to cover them. 

Now, insurance premiums are slated to go way up next year. If I’m not mistaken, the cost of covering GLP-1 drugs is one reason that insurers have cited for those premium hikes. If this happens, can we expect that the cost of those drugs would strain state and federal budgets? 

Karlin-Smith: Actually, one I guess positive thing is that some GLP-1 drugs are slated to be subject to negotiation through the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] program next year, so that there’s maybe positive news around the prices of those going down. Again, that’s obviously only for Medicare. But the problem on the back end is that, based on law, Medicare is not allowed in Part D to cover drugs for weight loss. 

The Biden administration had tried through rulemaking to make an argument that weight loss drugs and drugs that treat obesity are two different things, hearkening back to — when that law was written we really didn’t understand obesity as a disease process and all the health problems it has on your body. We thought of weight loss as more of a cosmetic thing. The Trump administration actually pulled that rule, so this would be a much more small step in the direction of trying to get coverage. The report says it would be a “voluntary demo.” 

The biggest question in my mind, which is again, knowing that these drugs, even with cheaper prices, would likely raise costs, is what is the incentive for health plans to voluntarily want to participate in this? What would the government have to do to incentivize this? Without some sort of push there for states and for Medicare Part D plans, I’m not sure the private plans are just going to pick up these products given the amount of people that would qualify for them. I think we need a lot more details from the Trump administration to know if they can actually make this feasible. 

Weber: I just find this to be such a fascinating move considering [CMS Administrator Mehmet] Oz and Kennedy have such different opinions about weight loss drugs, as does MAHA as a whole. We at The Washington Post had reported previously that Oz does have financial ties to Ozempic through his show — they had to run a sponsored ad to some extent — and also through other means. It’s fascinating to see that clearly this is going forward, despite Kennedy having said repeatedly, often, constantly that he does not want to pay for these drugs, that he thinks other interventions, healthy diet and lifestyle, should be implemented. Which Oz has also really promoted as well. So fascinating to see how this experiment plays out. I agree with Sarah; I’m not sure where the incentives are, considering the cost that this will be to see it play out. 

Huetteman: And one year after Trump promised coverage for in vitro fertilization services on the campaign trail, The Washington Post reports that the White House does not plan to require health insurers to cover IVF. The president had said that “if he were elected, the government would either pay for IVF services itself or require insurance companies to do it.” 

What’s standing in the way here? What’s involved in making something an essential health benefit? 

Raman: I think this whole process has been interesting. In February, Trump had put out an executive order directing his administration to come up ways to reduce the out-of-pocket costs for IVF. At the time, it’s pretty vague in terms of what that would entail. After the deadline passed, in part, I think a lot of people weren’t surprised because a) IVF is very expensive. And b) I think there are a lot of complicated nuances to some of his base and whether or not they fully support IVF. We had a lot of this last year, with people saying that they support it, but then also some of the folks that are more pro-life have some stipulations about not wanting embryos destroyed. It just complicated that some of the people that were talking to him about some of the other abortion-related issues were not on board with all of the IVF things. I think that has played definitely a factor in what they’re going to do with this. 

But it’s also a hard thing to do, to just make this something that — even with prescription drugs, reducing the costs of those is not simple. In order for them to make it an essential health benefit, I think, is also more complicated given the issues that we’ve been having with preventative care, and just the concerns about the [U.S. Preventive Services Task Force] getting removed and what that’ll do to different things that are covered. It’s complicated and I wouldn’t really see this changing on IVF in the near future, at least from the executive level. 

Karlin-Smith: It needs to go through Congress to be an essential health benefit. I think there’s a theme in some of the topics we’re coming up to today where Trump is clearly coming up to the limits of his bully power and his threats of negotiation. I think Martin Makary, the head of the FDA, said, “You get more bees with honey.” Well, unfortunately, sometimes it’s just not enough to attract these industries to make major changes. 

Yes, they’ve gotten some sort of minor concessions, I think. I know they would like to think they’re transformative, but I think a lot of what they’ve gotten voluntarily is pretty minor, in terms of both health impact, and also how much it harms industry in terms of, like, food dyes. Or even the insurance companies saying, Oh, sure, we’ll do better on not going crazy on prior authorization. 

I think Trump now has to actually double-down and work with policymakers on rule writing, or work with Congress. It’s more complicated, especially again, as Sandhya said, IVF is something that’s complicated for his base to support. 

Huetteman: That’s right. This all came out of the blowback about how far towards banning abortion the country was going to go under Trump. This was a way to say, We’re preserving some parts of the reproductive health that are really important to people in our base, right?  

Raman: Yet even when Congress has tried to look at any of the IVF legislation in the past, it’s fallen on party lines. There have been ones that have been more messaging on either side. I think the closest we’ve gotten is that, on the defense side, trying to consider measures there for folks with Tricare, but it’s difficult to get folks on board with things like this through Congress. 

Huetteman: Well, speaking of Congress, Congress has left the building. August recess has begun and lawmakers are back home. Say, how is that government funding coming along. Sandhya?  

Raman: I think we’re in a similar place to many years in that it’s August, they’re out. We need government funding by the end of September, and we’re nowhere close to getting that. I would say on the plus side, the Senate is further along than they usually are. Before they left, they did mark up the Labor, HHS, Education funding bill, and that was overwhelmingly bipartisan. It included some money that would be a boost for NIH [the National Institutes of Health], which I know was a big concern for a lot of folks given what was in the White House proposal. It maintains funding for some of the programs that would be cut under the White House, things like Title X, Ryan White HIV. It also has a little bit of a pushback on making sure that the agencies continue the staffing to keep up some of their statutory duties.  

But again, it’s just the Senate. The House has not put out their bill. I would expect theirs to be a bit more conservative, given that the head of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate is Susan Collins, who’s been a little bit more moderate. The House is expected to release theirs and mark up theirs right after they get back. They meant to do it before recess but got pushed back because of reconciliation and that changing their schedule. 

It depends what they say in theirs and how much difference there is. I would expect there to be a lot of differences. It seems like we’re headed toward the usual of at least some sort of temporary spending to kick it down the line. Whether or not that ends up being a year again, like we did this year, or a short-term thing, we’re not sure yet. It depends on where we are in September.  

Huetteman: Right. And possibly preceded by a lot of fighting over social issues that get thrown into the health bill, and fights over the actual funding levels, if I had to guess, based on how House lawmakers have been talking about it so far.  

Raman: Oh, no. I think just the fact that we had such a big rescissions debate this year and the fact that we might do that again, it has definitely left a sour taste for a lot of Democrats who are worried that if whatever they vote for here might just get clawed back later on down the line. That’ll be another thorn in it.  

Huetteman: Awesome. Well, thanks for that take. That’s this week’s news. Now it’s time for our extra-credits segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week that we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it; we’ll put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device.  

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

Weber: I have a doozy of a story from The New York Times titled “‘Hot Wasps’ Found at Nuclear Facility in South Carolina,” by Emily Anthes. Yeah, it’s the stuff of nightmares. It’s all about how wasps became radioactive — four wasps’ nests near a South Carolina nuclear facility.  

Huetteman: Yikes.  

Weber: If this gave you bad dreams, it definitely did for me. Essentially, what some of the researchers have posited is that wasps could have burrowed in some sort of bad wood or wood that was contaminated or other parts of the area that are contaminated. But this idea that it sounds like something out of Chernobyl, or something like that. But this idea that in the U.S., you could have a nuclear facility that is potentially transforming some of the near-wildlife is concerning in terms of cleanup efforts, and also concerning in terms of contamination control. Clearly, there’s more that needs to be dug into there. Hopefully everyone sleeps after hearing about this.  

Huetteman: Woof, yeah. I might need to take an Ambien tonight. Sandhya, how about you go next?  

Raman: My extra credit is from me in Roll Call. It’s my last dispatch from my reporting trip in Sweden earlier this year. And it’s called “Sweden’s Push for Smokeless Products Leads Some To Wonder About Risks.” It looks a little bit at some of the public health impacts as Sweden has really tried to reduce their smoking rate to become smoke-free. The U.S. is also at a low from smoking. Some of the things that public health experts are thinking about as people shift to other products and how they’re able to message to the remaining smokers that are not willing to give that up still.  

Huetteman: Awesome. Thanks for telling us about your work there. And Sarah?  

Karlin-Smith: I looked at a story from Slate, “Confessions of a Welfare Queen: I Study Poverty for a Living, and I Never Thought I’d Need Medicaid. Then My Child Was Diagnosed With a Terminal Illness,” by Maria Kefalas. It’s a personal story from a mother whose family needed Medicaid when their young child was diagnosed with an illness that was going to severely require intense medical care and limit her lifespan. They were able to take advantage of what are known as “Katie Beckett waivers” that were instituted by Ronald Reagan to allow states to voluntarily allow higher income requirements so that people could get Medicaid and care for their children at home. The original girl it was named for was otherwise basically going to be stuck living her life, and she lived until 34, in a hospital.  

The purpose of the story is really to point out that now that the “Big, Beautiful Bill” has passed and there are $1 trillion in spending cuts to Medicaid, that these are some of the sorts of people and programs, because it is not a mandatory program, that may unfortunately be on the first for the chopping block. I think the piece does a good job of pointing out, while there’s been a lot of rhetoric around the people who are going to get hurt by this are people that are not working or somehow abusing the system, and the mother does a pretty good job of talking about how both she and her husband continue to work. Most of the families that need this program, to the extent they can, want to keep working. You just get a really human picture of the type of people that are at risk of losing services.  

Huetteman: Yeah, for sure. It’s a really illuminating story. Thanks for talking about it. My extra credit this week is from my colleagues here at KFF Health News. The headline is “New Medicaid Federal Work Requirements Mean Less Leeway for States.” It’s by Katheryn Houghton and Bram Sable-Smith. 

They report that at least 14 states are in progress designing their own work requirement programs. But now, with the passage of Trump’s law last month, which institutes federal work requirements, those states must make sure that their programs meet federal standards. In some cases, the states are actually going even further than federal requirements, my colleagues report. For instance, Arizona state law would institute a five-year lifetime limit on Medicaid coverage for “able-bodied adults.” 

OK, that’s this week’s show. Thanks as always to our producer-engineer, Francis Ying, and to Stephanie Stapleton, our editor this week. If you enjoyed the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left a review; that helps other people find us, too. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on LinkedIn. Where are you guys these days? Sandhya?  

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

Huetteman: Sarah?  

Karlin-Smith: A little bit of everywhere, but X, Bluesky, LinkedIn @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith.  

Huetteman: And Lauren?  

Weber: I’m at X and Bluesky @laurenweberhp. Yes, the HP is for “health policy.” 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

Much of the hubbub in health care this year has been focused on Medicaid, which faces dramatically reduced federal funding as the result of the huge budget bill signed by President Donald Trump earlier this month. But now the attention is turning to the Affordable Care Act, which is facing some big changes that could cost many consumers their health coverage as soon as 2026.

Meanwhile, changes to immigration policy under Trump could have an outsize impact on the nation’s health care system, both by exacerbating shortages of health workers and by eliminating insurance coverage that helps keep some hospitals and clinics afloat.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Julie Appleby of KFF Health News, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Julie Appleby
KFF Health News

@julie_appleby

Read Julie's stories.

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

@jessiehellmann.bsky.social

Read Jessie's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

@alicemiranda.bsky.social

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Many Americans can expect their health insurance premiums to rise next year, but those rate hikes could be even bigger for the millions who rely on ACA health plans. To afford such plans, most consumers rely on enhanced federal government subsidies, which are set to expire — and GOP lawmakers seem loath to extend them, even though many of their constituents could lose their insurance as a result.
• Congress included a $50 billion fund for rural health care in Trump’s new law, aiming to cushion the blow of Medicaid cuts. But the fund is expected to fall short, especially as many people lose their health insurance and clinics, hospitals, and health systems are left to cover their bills.
• Abortion opponents continue to claim the abortion pill mifepristone is unsafe, more recently by citing a problematic analysis — and some lawmakers are using it to pressure federal officials to take another look at the drug’s approval. Meanwhile, many Planned Parenthood clinics are bracing for an end to federal funding, stripping money not only from busy clinics where abortion is legal but also from clinics that provide only contraception, testing for sexually transmitted infections, and other non-abortion care in states where the procedure is banned.
• And as more states implement laws enabling doctors to opt out of treatments that violate their morals, a pregnant woman in Tennessee says her doctor refused to provide prenatal care, because she is unmarried.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Jonathan Oberlander, a Medicare historian and University of North Carolina health policy professor, to mark Medicare’s 60th anniversary later this month.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Republicans Call Medicaid Rife with Fraudsters. This Man Sees No Choice but To Break the Rules,” by Katheryn Houghton.  

Julie Appleby: NPR’s “Many Beauty Products Have Toxic Ingredients. Newly Proposed Bills Could Change That,” by Rachel Treisman.  

Jessie Hellmann: Roll Call’s “Kennedy’s Mental Health Drug Skepticism Lands at FDA Panel,” by Ariel Cohen.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Associated Press’ “RFK Jr. Promoted a Food Company He Says Will Make Americans Healthy. Their Meals Are Ultraprocessed,” by Amanda Seitz and Jonel Aleccia.  

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• KFF Health News’ “Insurers and Customers Brace for Double Whammy to Obamacare Premiums,” by Julie Appleby.
• The Congressional Budget Office’s “Estimated Budgetary Effects of Public Law 119-21, to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title II of H. Con. Res. 14, Relative to CBO’s January 2025 Baseline.”
• The CBO’s “How Changes to Funding for the NIH and Changes in the FDA’s Review Times Would Affect the Development of New Drugs.”
• KFF’s “KFF Health Tracking Poll: Public Views on Recent Tax and Budget Legislation,” by Grace Sparks, Shannon Schumacher, Julian Montalvo III, Ashley Kirzinger, and Liz Hamel.
• The Washington Post’s “Digging Into the Math of a Study Attacking the Safety of the Abortion Pill,” by Glenn Kessler.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Here Come the ACA Premium Hikes

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, July 24, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Today we are joined via videoconference by Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call. 

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there. 

Rovner: Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: And my KFF Health News colleague Julie Appleby. 

Julie Appleby: Hi. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have the first of a two-part series marking the 60th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, which is July 30. Medicare historian and University of North Carolina professor Jonathan Oberlander takes us on a brief tour of the history of Medicare. Next week we’ll do the same with Medicaid. But first, this week’s news. 

So, we have talked a lot about the changes to Medicaid as a result of the Trump tax and spending law, but there are big changes coming to the Affordable Care Act, too, which is why I have asked my colleague Julie Appleby to join us this week. Julie, what can people who buy insurance from the ACA marketplaces expect for 2026? 

Appleby: Well, there’s a lot of changes. Let’s talk about premiums first, OK? So there’s a couple of things going on with premiums. It’s kind of a double whammy. So, on the one hand, insurers are asking for higher premiums next year to cover different things. So in the summer they put out their rates for the following year. So there’s been a lot of uncertainty this year, so that’s playing into it as well. But what they’re asking for is some money for rising medical and labor costs, the usual culprits, drug costs going up, that kind of thing. But they’re tacking on some extra percentages to deal with some of the policy changes advanced by the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress. And one key factor is the uncertainty over whether Congress is going to extend those more generous covid-era tax subsidies. So we’re looking at premiums going up, and the ask right now, what they’re asking for, the median ask, is 15%, which is a lot higher. Last year when KFF did the same survey, it was 7%. So we’re getting premium increase requests of a fairly substantial amount. In fact, they say it’s about the highest in five years.  

And then on top of that, it’s still not clear what’s going to happen with those more generous subsidies. And if the more generous subsidies go away, if Congress does not reinstate them, there’ll be costs from that, and people could be paying maybe 75% more than they’re paying this year. And we could talk some more about that. But that’s kind of the double whammy we’re looking at, rising premiums and the potential that these more generous subsidies won’t be extended by Congress. 

Rovner: So there were some things that were specifically in that tax and spending bill that drive up premiums for the ACA, right? Besides not extending the additional subsidies. 

Appleby: Well, that’s the biggest piece of it, but yes. They’re tacking on about 4% of that 15% medium increase is related to the uncertainty. Well, they’re assuming that the tax credits will expire. It was not in the bill. Congress could still act. They have until the end of the year. They could extend those subsidies. So that’s about 4%. But one of the things that people haven’t really been talking about are tariffs, and some of the insurers are asking for 3% because they expect drug costs to go up. So there’s those things that are going on. And then there’s just sort of the uncertainty going forward for insurers about what’s going to happen with enrollment as a result of both these premium increases, and then looking a little bit further down the line, there are some changes in the tax and spending bill and some rules that are going to substantially reduce enrollment. 

So insurers are worried that the people who are going to sign up for coverage are the ones who are most motivated, and those are probably going to be the people who have some health problems. And the folks who aren’t as motivated are going to look at the prices and maybe the additional red tape and will drop out and leave them with a sicker and more expensive pool to cover. So all of that is factoring in with these premium rate increases that they’re trying to put together. Now remember, a lot of these insurers put in these premium increase requests before they knew the outcome of the tax and spending legislation. They could still modify them. 

Rovner: And Jessie, as Julie said, there’s still a chance that Republicans will change their minds on the increased subsidies and tack them onto something. And there’s a big bipartisan health bill on drug prices and other expiring programs that still could get done before the end of the year? Yes? 

Hellmann: There have been discussions about a bipartisan health bill, though the main author of it, Sen. Bill Cassidy, himself even seems kind of skeptical. I talked to him this week, and he’s like, It might happen, it might not. But there are a bunch of other health extenders that Congress will need to get to, like telehealth, some Medicare and Medicaid payment things. So there’s definitely something to attach it to. Republicans are not friendly to the ACA. As you mentioned, they made a bunch of changes to it in this tax and spending bill. So I think the people I talk to think it’s a long shot that they’re going to pass billions of dollars in a subsidy extension in this bill. Though there are Republicans who do care about this issue, like Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. She’s kind of been sounding the alarm on this. She thinks that Congress needs to do something to mitigate which could be very big premium increases for people. So there is some pressure there, but it doesn’t seem like the people who should be thinking about this right now have started thinking about it much yet. 

Rovner: One presumes they’ll start thinking about it when they start seeing these actual premium increases. I sound like a broken record, but we keep saying, the people who these premium increases are going to hit the hardest are voters in red states. 

Appleby: Last year, in 2024, 56% of ACA enrollees lived in Republican congressional districts and 76% were in states won by President [Donald] Trump. So I’ve got to think they’re thinking about it. When I did the reporting on this story, I spoke with a couple of folks, and they said that some people in Congress are looking at maybe they can mess around or maybe they can do something with the subsidies that’s not keeping them as they are but might deal with a piece of it. For example, there is something called a subsidy cliff. So if you make more than 400% of the federal poverty level, you used to not get any subsidies. That would come back if they don’t extend this. And so 400% of the federal poverty level, you make a dollar more, you don’t get a subsidy. So this year — and this year will be the numbers that next year’s rates are based on — $62,600 for one person is 400% of the federal poverty level and $84,600 for a couple. So people are going to start getting, if they don’t extend the tax credits, they’re going to start getting notification about how much they owe for premiums next year. 

And this is going to be one of the first effects that people are going to see from all these changes in Washington, the tax and spending bill and the other things, when they get these premiums for January. And if they make even a dollar over that, they’re not going to get any subsidy at all. So what I’m told by some of my sources is that maybe they’re thinking about raising that cliff, maybe keeping the cliff but maybe moving it up a little bit to 500% or 600%. But it’s totally unclear. Like you all are saying, nothing may happen. We may go through Dec. 31 and nothing happens, but I’m hearing that they are maybe talking a little bit about that. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: Yeah. And there’s a couple interesting dynamics that I think could influence the politics of this and what Congress feels motivated to do or not do. So, like Julie was saying, this would hit in January. And a lot of the stuff in the bill they just passed is designed to not hit until the midterms, but this would hit before the midterms. And so that’s got to be on their minds. And then, like you were saying, not only would this hit Republican voters the hardest, but a reason that’s more true today than it was the last time they took a round at the Affordable Care Act in 2017 is because all of these red states have expanded since then. You have a lot more enrollment, even in states that didn’t expand, and so, like we mentioned, are going to have a lot of Republican voters who get hit and have this sticker shock. And the party in power in Congress and the White House could be to blame. 

Rovner: Yeah. One of the things in 2017, there were, what, 12 million people who were buying coverage on the marketplaces. And now there’s 24 million people who are buying coverage on the marketplaces. So it’s a lot more people, just plain, in addition to a lot more people who are likely in some of these red states. So we will follow this closely. 

Meanwhile, the fallout continues as people find out more about the new tax and spending law. The Congressional Budget Office is out with its final numbers on the bill as enacted. It’s now estimating that 10 million more people will be uninsured in 2034 as a result of the new law. That’s down from the 11.8 million estimate of the original Senate bill. That’s because the parliamentarian bounced the provisions that would’ve punished states using their own money to cover undocumented people. That was not allowed to be considered under the reconciliation procedure. 

We also have a brand-new poll from my colleagues here at KFF that find that more people know about the law than did before it passed, and it’s still unpopular. We’ll post a link to those numbers so you can see just how unpopular it is. As we’ve discussed, lots of Republican senators and House members expressed concern about the impact the Medicaid cuts could have on rural hospitals in particular. So much so that a $50 billion fund was eventually added to the bill to offset roughly $155 billion in rural Medicaid cuts. Even more confusing, that $50 billion is likely to be distributed before some of the cuts begin — as you were just saying, Alice — and not necessarily to just rural areas. So is this $50 billion fund really just a big lobbying bonanza? 

Ollstein: Well, it’s certainly designed to function as softening the blow. But these are different things. The hospital could be propped up and stay open, but if no one has Medicaid to go there, that’s still a problem. And the money is sort of acknowledging that a bunch of people are going to lose their coverage, because it’s meant to give the hospital something to use for uncompensated care for people who have no coverage and come to the ER. But that still means that people who lost their insurance because of other provisions in the bill, they might not be going to their preventive care appointments that would avoid them having to go to the emergency room in the first place, which costs all of us more in the long run. So there’s a lot of skepticism about the efficacy of this. 

Rovner: Jessie, are you seeing the lobbying already begin for who’s going to get this $50 billion? 

Hellmann: Yeah, because the legislation leaves a lot of how the money will be handed out to the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] secretary, and so that’s something that they’re going to start thinking about. It reminds me a lot of the provider relief fund that was set up during covid. And that didn’t go very well. There were lots of complaints that providers were getting the funding that didn’t need the funding, and the small safety net hospitals weren’t getting enough of the funding. So I’m wondering if they’re going to revisit how that went and try to learn any lessons from it. And then at the same time, like Alice said, this just isn’t a lot of money. It’s not going to offset some of the pain to rural providers that the bill has caused. 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, another piece that we will be watching. Meanwhile, the cuts to SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] food benefits conflict with another stated goal of this administration, improving health by getting people to eat healthier food. Except, as we know, healthier food is often more expensive. Other than not letting people buy soda and candy with their SNAP cards, has the administration tried to address this contradiction at all? I’m seeing a lot of blank stares. I’m assuming that the answer to that is no. We’re hearing so much about food and unhealthy food, and we’re getting rid of seed oils and we’re getting rid of dyes, but at the same time, it’s the biggest cut ever to nutrition assistance, and yet nobody’s really talking about it, right? 

Appleby: Sounds like, I think, the states are really worried, obviously, because they’re going to have to make up the difference if they can. And so what other programs are they going to cut? So I’m sure they are talking with folks in Congress, but I don’t know how much leverage they’re going to have. Do you guys have any idea whether the states, is there anything else that they can do to try to get some of this funding? 

Rovner: There’s no — I’ve seen no indication. As we said, there’s already some buyer’s remorse on the health side. Last week we talked about [Sen.] Josh Hawley introducing legislation to restore some of the Medicaid cuts that he just voted for, but I haven’t seen anybody talking about restoring any of these nutrition assistance cuts or any of the other cuts, right? 

Appleby: Right. And from what I’ve read, the SNAP cuts won’t fully take effect until after the midterm elections. So maybe we’re just not hearing about it as much because it hasn’t really hit home yet. People are still trying to figure out: What does all this mean? 

Rovner: Well, one thing that has hit home yet, I’ve wanted for a while to highlight what some of the changes to immigration policy are going to mean for health care. It’s not just ending legal status for people who came and have lived in the U.S. legally for years, or reinterpreting, again, the 1996 welfare law to declare ineligible for Medicaid and other programs many legal immigrants who are not yet permanent residents but who have been getting benefits because they had been made legally eligible for them by Congress and the president. One of the big changes to policy came to light last week when it was revealed that immigration officials are now being given access to Medicaid enrollment information, including people’s physical addresses. Why is this such a big deal? Alice, you’ve been following this whole immigration and health care issue, right? 

Ollstein: Yes. Experts are warning that this is very dangerous from a public health perspective. If you deter people from physically wanting to visit a clinic or a doctor out of fear of ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] enforcement there, which we’ve already seen — we’ve already seen ICE try to barge into hospitals and seize people. And so fear of that is keeping people away from their appointments. That makes it harder to manage chronic illnesses. That makes it harder to manage infectious diseases, which obviously impacts the whole community and the whole society. We all bear those costs. We live in an interconnected world. What impacts part of the population impacts the rest of the population. 

And so what you mentioned about the Medicaid data, as well, deters people who are perfectly eligible, who are not undocumented, who have legal status, who are eligible for Medicaid. It deters them from enrolling, which again deters people from using that health care and keeping their conditions in check. And so there’s a lot of concern about how this could play out and how long the effect could last, because there are studies showing that policies from the first Trump administration were still deterring immigrants from enrolling even after they were lifted by the Biden administration. 

Rovner: And we should point out that this whole address thing is a big issue because, as you say, there, maybe, there are a lot of families where there are people who live there who are perfectly, as you say, perfectly eligible. You’re not eligible for Medicaid if you’re not here legally. But they may live in a family, in a household with people who are not here with documentation, and they’re afraid now that if they have their addresses, that ICE is going to come knocking at their door to get, if not them, then their relatives or people who are staying with them. 

Appleby: Yeah. And I think it’s also affecting employment. So nursing homes are already saying that they’re losing some people who are losing their protected status or this or that. So they’re losing employees. Some of them are reporting, from what I’ve read, that they are getting fewer applicants for jobs. This is going to make it even tougher. Many of them already have staffing issues, and the nursing home industry has said, Hey, how come we’re not getting any special consideration? Like maybe some of the farmers or other places are supposedly getting, but I don’t know if that’s actually happening. But why aren’t they being considered and why are they losing some of their workers who are here under protected status, which they’re going to lose? And some of them may also be undocumented — I don’t know. But that’s just the nursing homes. Think of all the people around the country who need help in their homes, and maybe they’re taking care of elderly parents and they hire people, and some of those people may not be documented. And that’s a vast number of folks that we’re never going to hear about, but if they start losing their caregivers as well, I think that’s going to be a big impact as we go forward. 

Rovner: And it’s also skilled health workers who are here on visas who are immigrants. 

Appleby: Right. 

Rovner: In rural areas in particular, doctors and nurses are usually people who have been recruited from other countries because there are not enough people or not health professionals living in those rural areas. The knock-on effect of this, I think, is bigger than anybody has really sort of looked at yet. 

Ollstein: Absolutely. States have even been debating and in some cases passing legislation to make it easier for foreign medical workers to come practice here, making it so that they don’t have to redo their residency if they already did their residency somewhere abroad, things like that, because there’s such shortages right now, especially in primary care and maternal care and a lot of different areas. 

Rovner: Yeah. This is another area that I think we’re only just beginning to see the impact of. Well, there is also news this week in Trump administration cuts that are not from the budget bill. In a report from the Congressional Budget Office that’s separate from the latest budget reconciliation estimate, analysts said that the Trump administration’s proposed cuts to the budgets of the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration could reduce the number of new drugs coming to market. That would not only mean fewer new treatments and cures but also a hit to the economy. And apparently it doesn’t even take into account the uncertainty that’s making many researchers consider offers to decamp to Canada or Europe or other countries. There’s a real multiplier effect here on what’s a big part of U.S. innovation. 

Hellmann: I’ve been talking to people on the Hill about this who traditionally have been big supporters of the NIH and authorizing and appropriating increases for the NIH every year. And they are still kind of playing a little coy. The White House is suggesting a budget cut at the NIH of 40%, which would be massive. It’s so massive that the CBO report was like: We cannot estimate the impact of this. We’re going to estimate a smaller hypothetical. Because they just can’t. 

And so I think it’ll be interesting to see how it plays out in the appropriations process. You do have senators who are more publicly concerned about it, like Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who obviously is on the Appropriations Committee. So we might see a situation where Congress ignores the budget request. That usually happens, but these are weird times. And so I think there are questions about, even if they do, if Congress does proceed as normal and appropriate the money that they typically do for NIH, what is the administration going to do with it? They’ve already signaled that they’re fine not spending money that has been appropriated by Congress. And so I think that there’s a big question about that. 

Rovner: At some point, this has to come to a head. We’ve been — as I say, I feel like a broken record on this. We talk about it a lot, that this is money that’s been appropriated by Congress and signed by the president and that we keep hearing that people, particularly at NIH, are not being allowed, for one reason or another, to send out. This is technically illegal impoundment. And at some point it comes to a head. We know that Russ Vought, the head of the Office of Management Budget, thinks that the anti-impoundment law is illegal and that he can just ignore it. And that’s a lot of what’s happening right now. I’m still surprised that it’s the end of July and Congress is going out for the August recess — and Jessie, I know you’re talking to people and they’re playing coy — that they haven’t jumped up and down yet. The NIH in particular has been such a bipartisanly supported entity. If you’ve ever been around the campus in Bethesda, all of the buildings are named after various appropriators of both parties. This is something that is really dear to Congress, and yet they are just basically sitting there holding their tongues. At some point, won’t it stop? 

Hellmann: I think maybe they’re hoping to say something through whatever legislation that they come out with, whatever spending legislation. But, yeah, they’re not being very forceful about it. And I think people are obviously just very afraid of making the Trump administration angry. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has said this, like she kind of fears the repercussions of making the president mad. And he’s on this spending-cut spree. So I definitely expected more anger, especially the bipartisan history of the NIH has lasted so long. It’s kind of a weird thing to see happen. 

Rovner: Yeah. Of all the things that I didn’t expect to see happen this year, that has to be the thing that I most didn’t expect to see happen this year, which was basically an administration just stopping funding research and Congress basically sitting back and letting it happen. It is still sort of boggling to my mind. Well, we also learned this week about hospitals stopping gender-affirming care of all kinds for minors, under increasing pressure from the administration. And we’re not just talking about red states anymore. Children’s hospitals in California and here in Washington, D.C., have now announced they won’t be offering the care anymore. Wasn’t it just a few months ago when people were moving from red states to blue states to get their kids care? Now what are they going to be able to do? 

Ollstein: I think a lot of what we’re seeing play out in the gender-affirming care fight, it reminds me of the abortion rights fight. There are a lot of themes about the formal health care system being very, very risk-averse. And so rather than test the limits of the law, rather than continuing to provide services while things are still pingponging back and forth in courts, which is the case, they’re saying, just out of caution, We’re just going to stop altogether. And that is cutting off a lot of families from care that they were relying on. And there’s a lot of concern about the physical and mental health impacts on — again, this is very small compared to the general population of trans kids — but it’s going to hit a lot of people. And yeah, like you said, this is happening in blue states as well. There’s sort of nowhere for them to go. 

Rovner: Yeah. We’re going to see how this one also plays out. Well, turning to abortion, we talked last week about how a federal appeals court upheld a West Virginia law aimed at banning the abortion pill mifepristone. And I wondered why we weren’t hearing more from the drug industry about the dangers of state-by-state undermining of the FDA. And lo and behold, here come the drugmakers. In comments letters to the FDA, more than 50 biotech leaders and investors are urging the agency to disregard a controversial study from the anti-abortion think tank the Ethics and Public Policy Center that officials are citing as a reason to reopen consideration of the drug’s approval. Alice, remind us what this study is and why people are so upset about it. 

Ollstein: So it’s not a study, first of all. Even its supporters in the anti-abortion movement admitted, in private in a Zoom meeting that I obtained access to, that it is not a study. This is an analysis that they created. They are not disclosing the dataset that it is based on. It did not go through peer review. And so they are citing their own sort of white-paper analysis put out by an explicitly anti-abortion think tank to argue that abortion pills are more dangerous than previously known or that the FDA has previously acknowledged. There’s been a lot of fact checks and debunks of some of their main points that we’ve been through on this podcast also before. The Washington Post did an in-depth fact check if people want to look that up. But suffice it to say that that has not deterred members of Congress from citing this and to pressure the FDA. 

And now you have the FDA sort of promising to do a review. If you look at the exact wording of what [FDA Commissioner Marty] Makary said, I’m not sure. He said something like, Like we monitor the safety of all drugs, we’re going to blah, blah, blah. And so it’s unclear if there’s anything specific going on. But the threat that there could be, like you said, is really shaking up the drugmaking industry. And you’re hearing a lot of the same alarms that we heard from the pharmaceutical industry when this was before the Supreme Court, when they were afraid the Supreme Court would second-guess the FDA’s judgment and reimpose restrictions on mifepristone. And they’re saying, Look, if we can’t count on this being a process that just takes place based on the science and not politics and not courts coming in 25 years later and saying actually no, then why would we invest so much money in developing drugs if we can’t even count on the rules being fair and staying the same? 

Rovner: Yeah. We will see how this goes. I was surprised, though. We know that that Texas case that the Supreme Court managed to not reach the point of, because the plaintiffs didn’t have standing, is still alive elsewhere. But I didn’t realize that this other case was still sort of chugging along. So we’ll see when the Supreme Court gets another bite at it. Meanwhile, the fight over funding for Planned Parenthood — whose Medicaid eligibility, at least for one year, was canceled by the new budget law — continues in court. This week a judge in Massachusetts gave the group a partial win by blocking the defunding for some smaller clinics and those that don’t perform abortions, but that ruling replaced a more blanket delay on the defunding. So many clinics are now having their funding stopped while the court fight continues. Alice, what’s the impact here of these Planned Parenthood clinics closing down? It’s not just abortion that we’re talking about. In fact, it’s not even primarily abortion that we’re talking about. 

Ollstein: Absolutely. So this is one, it’s set to hit a lot of clinics in states where abortion is legal. And so these are the clinics that are serving a lot of people traveling from red states. And so there’s already an issue with wait times, and this is set to make it worse. But that’s just for abortion. Like you said, this is also set to hit a bunch of clinics in states where abortion is illegal and where these clinics are only providing other services, like birth control, like STI [sexually transmitted infection] testing. And at the same time we’re having a lot of other funding frozen, and so this could really be tough for some of these areas where there aren’t a lot of providers, and especially there are not a lot of providers who accept Medicaid. 

Rovner: Meanwhile, a number of states are passing conscience laws that let health professionals opt out of things like doing abortions or providing gender-affirming care if they violate their beliefs. Well, in Tennessee now we have a story of a pregnant woman who says her doctor refused to provide her with prenatal care, because she’s not married to her partner of 15 years. She said at a congressional town hall that her doctor said her marital status violated his Christian beliefs, and he’s apparently protected by the new Tennessee state law called the Medical Ethics Defense Act. I’ve heard of doctors refusing to prescribe birth control for unmarried women, but this is a new one to me, and I’ve been doing this for a very long time. Are these just unintended consequences of these things that maybe state lawmakers didn’t think a lot about? Or are they OK with doctors saying, We’re not going to provide you with prenatal care if you’re pregnant and not married? 

Ollstein: So one, as we just said, we’re in a situation where there is such a shortage of providers and such a shortage of providers who accept certain coverage that being turned away by one place, you might not be able to get an appointment somewhere else, depending where you live. And so this isn’t just an issue of, Oh, well, just don’t go to that doctor who believes that. People have very limited choices in a lot of circumstances. But I— 

Rovner: Apparently this woman in Tennessee said she’s having to go to Virginia to get her prenatal care. 

Ollstein: Well, exactly. Yeah. Exactly. This isn’t like people have tons of options. And also this is an example of a slippery slope, of if you allow people to be able to refuse service for this reason, for that reason, what else could happen? And some states have more legal protections for things like marital status, and some do not. And so it’s worth thinking through what could be sort of the next wave. 

Rovner: Well, we’re certainly going to see what the outcome of this could be. Well, before we end our news segment this week, I want to give a shoutout to tennis legend Venus Williams, who at age 45 won a singles match at a professional tournament here in Washington this week and said in her post-match interview that she came back to playing because she needed the pro tour’s health insurance to take care of several chronic conditions that she has. So see, even rich athletes need their health insurance. All right. That is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with Medicare historian Jonathan Oberlander, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome Jonathan Oberlander to the podcast. He’s a professor of social medicine, professor of health policy and management, and adjunct professor of political science at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill and one of the nation’s leading experts on Medicare. Jon, welcome to “What the Health?” 

Jonathan Oberlander: Great to see you, Julie. 

Rovner: So Medicare, to me at least, remains the greatest paradox in the paradox that is the U.S. health care system. It is at once both so popular and so untouchable that it’s considered the third rail of politics, yet at its core it’s a painfully out-of-date and meager benefit that nevertheless threatens to go bankrupt on a regular basis. How did we get here? 

Oberlander: Wow. So let’s talk about the benefits for a minute. And I think one of the things we can say about Medicare in 2025 as we mark this 60th anniversary is it still bears the imprint of Medicare in 1965. And when Medicare was designed as a program — and the idea really dates back to the early 1950s — it was not seen as a comprehensive benefit. It was intended to pay for the most consequential costs of medical care, for acute care costs. And so when it was enacted in 1965, the benefits were incomplete. And the problem is, as you know very well, they haven’t been added to all that much. And here we have a population, and all of us know as we get older, we generally don’t get healthier. I wish it was true, but it’s not. Older persons deal with all kinds of complex medical issues and have a lot of medical needs, and yet Medicare’s benefits are very limited, so limited that actually a very small percentage of Medicare beneficiaries have only Medicare. Most Medicare beneficiaries have Medicare plus something else. And that may be an individual private plan that they purchase called a Medigap plan, or maybe a declining number of people have retiree health insurance that supplements Medicare. 

Some low-income Medicare beneficiaries have Medicaid as well as Medicare and they are dual-eligible. Some Medicare beneficiaries have extra benefits through the Medicare Advantage program, which I’m sure— 

Rovner: We’ll get to. 

Oberlander: —we’ll have a lot to say. So the bottom line, though, is Medicare has grown. It has, what, about 70 million Americans rely on Medicare. But the benefit package — with some intermittent exceptions that are significant, such as the addition of outpatient prescription drugs in 2006 — really has not kept pace. 

Rovner: So let’s go back to the beginning. What was the problem that Medicare set out to solve? 

Oberlander: Well, it was both a substantive problem and a political problem. The origins of Medicare are in the ashes, the failure, of the Truman administration proposals for national health insurance during the mid- and late 1940s. And after they had lost repeatedly, health reformers decided they needed a new strategy. So instead of national health insurance, what today we would call a single-payer, federal-government-run program for everybody, they trimmed their ambitions down to, initially, just hospital insurance, 60 days of hospital insurance for elderly Social Security beneficiaries. And that was it. And they thought if they just focused on older Americans, maybe they would tamp down the controversy and the opposition and the American Medical Association and charges of socialized medicine, all things that are really throwing a wrench into plans for national health insurance. It didn’t quite work out as they thought. It took about 14 years from the time Medicare was proposed to enact it. And there was a big, divisive, controversial debate about Medicare’s enactment. But it was fundamentally a solution to that political problem of, how do you enact government health insurance in the United States? You pick a more sympathetic population. 

Now, there was a substantive problem, which was in the 1940s and especially 1950s, private health insurance was growing in the United States for Americans who are working-age, and that growth of employer-sponsored health insurance really left out retirees. They were expensive. Commercial insurers didn’t want to cover them. And the uninsured rate, if you can believe it, for people over age 65, before Medicare, was around 50%. Not 15 but five zero, 50%. And so here you had a population that had more medical needs, was more expensive, and they had less access to health insurance than younger people. And Medicare was created in part to end that disparity and give them access to reliable coverage. 

Rovner: So as you mentioned, Medicare was initially just aimed at elderly Social Security recipients. What were some of the biggest benefit and population changes as the years went by? 

Oberlander: So in terms of populations in 1972, Medicare added coverage for persons who have end-stage renal disease, so people who need dialysis no matter what the age. It’s a lifesaving technology. They can qualify for Medicare. It didn’t really make sense to add it to Medicare — it’s just it was there. So they added it to Medicare. And also a population we don’t talk nearly enough about, younger Americans with permanent disabilities who are recipients of Social Security Disability Insurance. For a couple of years they qualify for Medicare as well and are a very important part in the Medicare population. Beyond that, Medicare’s covered population has not really changed all that much since the beginning, which actually would be a great disappointment to the architects of Medicare, who thought the program would expand to eventually cover everybody. 

In terms of benefits, the benefit package has been remarkably stable, for better and actually probably for worse, with the exception of, for example, the addition of outpatient prescription drug coverage, which came online in 2006, the addition of coverage for various preventive services such as mammography and cancer screenings. But Medicare still does not cover long-term stays in nursing homes. Many Americans think it does. They will be disappointed to find out it does not. Medicare does not cover, generally, hearing or vision or dental services. Traditional Medicare run by the government does not have a cap on the amount of money that beneficiaries can spend in a year on deductibles and copayments and so forth. So really its benefits remain quite limited. 

Rovner: So Medicare is also the biggest payer in the nation’s health care system and for decades set the standard in how private insurance covered and paid for health care. So let’s talk about privatization. Medicare Advantage, the private health plan alternative to traditional Medicare, is now more than half the program, both in terms of people and in terms of budget. Is this the future of Medicare? Or will we look back in many years and see it as kind of a temporary diversion? 

Oberlander: I think it’s the present and probably the future. The future is always so hard to predict, Julie, because it’s unwritten. But this is really a shocking outcome historically, because what Medicare’s architects expected was that the program was going to expand government health insurance to all Americans, first with the older population, then adding children, then adding everybody. Did not turn out that way. The original aspiration was Medicare for all, through any incremental means. Instead, 60 years later, we don’t have Medicare for all, but Medicare is mostly privatized. It’s a hybrid program with a public and private component that increasingly is dominated by private insurance. And the fact that over half of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in these private plans is a stunning development historically, by the way with lots of implications politically, because that’s an important new political force in Medicare that you have these large private plans and it’s changed Medicare politics. 

I don’t think Medicare Advantage is going anywhere. I think the question is, how big is it going to get? And I’m not sure any of us know. It’s been on a growth trajectory for a long time. And the question is — given that all the studies show that Medicare Advantage plans are overpaid, and overpaid by a lot, by the federal government, and it’s losing a lot of money on Medicare Advantage, and it’s never saved money — is there going to come a point where they actually clamp down? There’ve been some incremental efforts to try and restrain payments. Really haven’t had much effect. Are we actually going to get to a place where the federal government says: We need savings, yeah. This 22% extra that you’re getting, no, we can’t do that anymore. So I think it’s an open question about, how big is it going to get? Is it going to be two-thirds of the Medicare program, three-quarters of the Medicare program? And if so, then what is the future, turning the question on its head, of traditional Medicare if it’s that small? And that’s one of the great questions about Medicare in the next decade or two. 

Rovner: Thank you so much. 

Oberlander: Oh, thanks for having me. It was great to see you. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. And now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile devices. Julie, why don’t you go first this week? 

Appleby: Yeah. I found this story on NPR quite interesting. It’s maybe something that a lot of us have thought about, but it just added a lot of numbers to the question of how many chemicals are in our beauty products — basically, the makeup we use, the lotions, our hairspray, the stuff that happens at the salon, that kind of thing. And it’s called “Many Beauty Products Have Toxic Ingredients. Newly Proposed Bills Could Change That.” And it was written by Rachel Treisman. Basically it says that the average American adult uses about 12 personal care products a day, resulting in exposure to about 168 chemicals, which can include things like formaldehyde, mercury, asbestos, etc., etc. OK, so that’s interesting. But it also talks about how the European Union has banned more than 2,000 chemicals, basically, but the FDA puts limits on only about a dozen. 

So this has caused four Democratic lawmakers to introduce a package of legislation, actually they’re calling the Safer Beauty Bill Package, and it’s four bills. And basically one of them would ban two entire classes of chemicals, phthalates and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals. And it also calls for some other things as well, which they say hasn’t been done and needs to be looked at. So I just thought it was an interesting thing that pulled together a lot of data from various sources and talked about this package of bills and whether or not it might make a difference in terms of looking at some of these chemicals in the products we use all the time and requiring a little bit more transparency about that. It’s a step. I don’t know if it’s going to resolve everybody’s concerns about this, but I just thought it was an interesting little piece looking at that topic. 

Rovner: It’s worth remembering that the FDA’s governing statute is actually called the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

Appleby: That’s right. 

Rovner: The cosmetics often gets very short shrift in that whole thing. Alice, why don’t you go next? 

Ollstein: Yeah. So I have a piece from The Associated Press. It’s called “RFK Jr. Promoted a Food Company He Says Will Make Americans Healthy. Their Meals are Ultraprocessed.” And so this really gets at something we’ve been talking about on the podcast, where the administration is really fixated on a few kind of superficial food health things like colored dyes in food and frying something in beef tallow instead of vegetable oil. But something fried in beef tallow is still unhealthy. Froot Loops without the color dye are still unhealthy. And these meals that he is promoting as a service for Medicare and Medicaid enrollees are unhealthy. So this article is about how they do have chemical additives, they are high in sodium and sugar and saturated fats, and so it’s not in sort of keeping with the overall MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] message. But in a way it kind of is. 

Rovner: From the oops file. Jessie. 

Hellmann: My extra credit is from my colleague Ariel Cohen at Roll Call. It’s called “Kennedy’s Mental Health Drug Skepticism Lands at FDA Panel.” She did a story about something that kind of, I think, flew under the radar this week. The Trump administration is starting to make good on its promise to look at SSRIs [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors], and the panel was very much full of skeptics of SSRIs who sought to undermine the confidence in using them while pregnant. And Marty Makary himself, FDA commissioner, claimed it could cause birth defects and other fetal harm. That was a statement that was echoed by many of the panelists. There was only one panelist who talked about the benefits of SSRIs in pregnant people who need them, the risks of postpartum depression to both the mom and the baby. And so I think this is definitely something to keep an eye on, is it looks like they’re going to keep looking more at this and raising questions about SSRIs without having much of a nuanced conversation about it. 

Rovner: Yeah. I did see something from ACOG, from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, this week pushing back very hard on the anti-SSRI-during-pregnancy push. So we’ll see how that one goes, too. My extra credit this week is from my KFF Health News colleague Katheryn Houghton, and it’s called “Republicans Call Medicaid Rife With Fraudsters. This Man Sees No Choice but To Break the Rules.” And it’s about something that didn’t really come up during the whole Medicaid debate, the fact that if Republicans really want people to go to work, well, then maybe they shouldn’t take away their health insurance if they get a small raise or a few extra hours. The subject of this story, only identified as James, technically makes about $50 a week too much to stay on Medicaid, but he otherwise can’t afford his six prescription medications and he can’t afford the care that he needs through even a subsidized Affordable Care Act plan, or his employer’s plan, either. 

The point of the ACA was to make coverage seamless so that as you earn more, you can still afford coverage even if you’re not on Medicaid anymore. But obviously that isn’t happening for everyone. Quoting from the story: “‘I don’t want to be a fraud. I don’t want to die,’ James said. ‘Those shouldn’t be the only two options.’” Yet for a lot of people they are. It’s not great, and it’s not something that’s currently being addressed by policymakers. 

OK. That is this week’s show. Thanks as always to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. 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. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me still on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks hanging on social media these days? Jessie? 

Hellmann: I’m @jessiehellmann on Twitter and Bluesky. 

Rovner: Alice. 

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

Rovner: Julie. 

Appleby: @julie_appleby on X. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

The Senate has passed — and sent back to the House — a bill that would allow the Trump administration to claw back some $9 billion in previously approved funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. But first, senators removed from the bill a request to cut funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, President George W. Bush’s international AIDS/HIV program. The House has until Friday to approve the bill, or else the funding remains in place.

Meanwhile, a federal appeals court has ruled that West Virginia can ban the abortion pill mifepristone despite its approval by the Food and Drug Administration. If the ruling is upheld by the Supreme Court, it could allow states to limit access to other FDA-approved drugs.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

@joannekenen.bsky.social

Read Joanne's bio.

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefali.bsky.social

Read Shefali's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

@SandhyaWrites.bsky.social

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Senate approved the Trump administration’s cuts to foreign aid and public broadcasting, a remarkable yielding of congressional spending power to the president. Before the vote, Senate GOP leaders removed President Donald Trump’s request to cut PEPFAR, sparing the funding for that global health effort, which has support from both parties.
• Next Congress will need to pass annual appropriations bills to keep the government funded, but that is expected to be a bigger challenge than the recent spending fights. Appropriations bills need 60 votes to pass in the Senate, meaning Republican leaders will have to make bipartisan compromises. House leaders are already delaying health spending bills until the fall, saying they need more time to work out deals — and those bills tend to attract culture-war issues that make it difficult to negotiate across the aisle.
• The Trump administration is planning to destroy — rather than distribute — food, medical supplies, contraceptives, and other items intended for foreign aid. The plan follows the removal of workers and dismantling of aid infrastructure around the world, but the waste of needed goods the U.S. government has already purchased is expected to further erode global trust.
• And soon after the passage of Trump’s tax and spending law, at least one Republican is proposing to reverse the cuts the party approved to health programs — specifically Medicaid. It’s hardly the first time lawmakers have tried to change course on their own policies, though time will tell whether it’s enough to mitigate any political (or actual) damage from the law.

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

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “UnitedHealth’s Campaign to Quiet Critics,” by David Enrich.

Joanne Kenen: The New Yorker’s “Can A.I. Find Cures for Untreatable Diseases — Using Drugs We Already Have?” by Dhruv Khullar.

Shefali Luthra: The New York Times’ “Trump Official Accused PEPFAR of Funding Abortions in Russia. It Wasn’t True,” by Apoorva Mandavilli.

Sandhya Raman: The Nation’s “‘We’re Creating Miscarriages With Medicine’: Abortion Lessons from Sweden,” by Cecilia Nowell.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The Atlantic’s “The Trump Administration Is About To Incinerate 500 Tons of Emergency Food,” by Hana Kiros.
• KFF Health News’ “Vested Interests. Influence Muscle. At RFK Jr.’s HHS, It’s Not Pharma. It’s Wellness,” by Stephanie Armour.
• The Washington Post’s “A Clinic Blames Its Closing on Trump’s Medicaid Cuts. Patients Don’t Buy It,” by Hannah Knowles.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Senate Saves PEPFAR Funding — For Now

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, July 17, 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 videoconference by Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Sandhya Raman: Hello, everyone. 

Rovner: Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: No interview this week, but more than enough news. So we will get right to it. 

We’re going to start on Capitol Hill, where in the very wee hours of Thursday morning, the Senate approved the $9 billion package of rescissions of money already appropriated. It was largely for foreign aid and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which oversees NPR and PBS. Now, this bill represents pennies compared to the entire federal budget and even to the total of dollars that are appropriated every year, but it’s still a big deal because it’s basically Congress ceding more of its spending power back to the president. And even this small package was controversial. Before even bringing it to the floor, senators took out the rescission of funds for PEPFAR [the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief], the bipartisanly popular international AIDS/HIV program begun under President George W. Bush. So now it has to go back to the House, and the clock on this whole process runs out on Friday. Sandhya, what’s likely to happen next? 

Raman: I think that the House has been more amenable. They got this through quicker, but if you look— 

Rovner: By one vote. 

Raman: Yeah. But I think if you look at what else has been happening in the House this week that isn’t in the health sphere, they’ve been having issues getting other things done, because of some pushback from the Freedom Caucus, who’s been kind of stalling the votes and having them to go back. And other things that should have been smoother are taking a lot longer and having a lot more issues. So it’s more difficult to say without seeing how all of that plays out, if those folks are going to make a stink again about something here because some of this money was taken out. It’s a work in progress this week in the House. 

Rovner: Yeah, that’s a very kind way to put it. The House has basically been stalled for the last 24 hours over, as you say, many things, completely unrelated, but there is actually a clock ticking on this. They had 45 days from when the administration sent up this rescission request, and we’re now on Day 43 because Congress is the world’s largest group of high school students that never do anything until the last minute. So Democrats warned that this bill represents yet another dangerous precedent. They reached a bipartisan agreement on this year of spending bills in the spring, and this basically rolls at least some of that back using a straight party-line vote. What does this bode for the rest of Congress’ appropriations work for the fiscal year that starts in just a couple of months? 

Raman: I think that the sense has been that once this goes through, I think a lot of people have just been assuming that it’ll take time but that things will get passed on rescissions. It really puts a damper on the bipartisan appropriations process, and it’s going to make it a lot harder to get people to come to the table. So earlier this week we had the chair of the Appropriations Committee and the chair of the Labor, HHS [Health and Human Services], Education subcommittee in the House say that the health appropriations they were going to do next week for the House are going to get pushed back until September because they’re not ready. And I think that health is also one of the hardest ones to get through. There’s a lot more controversial stuff. It’s setting us up to go, kind of like usual at this point, for another CR [continuing resolution], because it’s going to be a really short timeline before the end of the fiscal year. But if you look at some— 

Rovner: Every year they say they’re going to do the spending bills separately, and every year they don’t. 

Raman: Yeah, and I think if you look at how they’ve been approaching some of the things that have been generally a little bit less controversial and how much pushback and how much more difficulties they’ve been having with that, even this week, I think that it’s going to be much more difficult to get that done. And the rescissions, pulling back on Congress’ power of the purse, is not going to make that any easier. 

Rovner: I think what people don’t appreciate, and I don’t think I appreciated it either until this came up, is that the rescissions process is part of the budget act, which is one of these things that Congress can do on an expedited basis in the Senate with just a straight majority. But the regular appropriations bills, unlike the budget reconciliation bill that we just did, need 60 votes. They can be filibustered. So the only way to get appropriations done is on a bipartisan basis, and yet they’re using this rather partisan process to take back some of the deal that they made. The Democrats keep saying it, and everybody’s like, Oh, process, process. But that actually could be a gigantic roadblock, to stopping everything in its tracks, right? 

Raman: I really think so. And if you look at who are the two Republicans in the Senate that voted against the rescissions, one of them is the Senate Appropriations chair, Susan Collins. And throughout this, one of her main concerns was when we still had the PEPFAR in there. But it just takes back her power as the highest-ranking appropriator in the Senate to do it through this process, especially when she wasn’t in favor of the rescissions package. 

So it’s going to make things, I think, a lot more complicated, and one of her concerns throughout has just been that there wasn’t enough information. She was pulling out examples of rescissions in the past and how it was kind of a different process. They were really briefed on why this was necessary. And it was just different now. So I think what happens with appropriations and how long it’ll take this year is going to be interesting to watch. 

Rovner: And it’s worth remembering that it’s when the appropriations don’t happen that the government shuts down. So, but that doesn’t happen until October. Well, separately we learned that — oh, go ahead, Joanne. 

Kenen: There’s also sort of a whole new wrinkle, is that rescissions is, if you’re a Republican and you don’t like something and you end up, to avoid a government shutdown or whatever reason, you end up having to vote for a bill, you just have the president put out a statement saying, If this goes through, I’m going to cut it afterwards. And then the Republican who doesn’t like it can give a floor speech saying, I’m voting for it because I like this in it and I know that the president’s going to take care of that. It really — appropriations is always messy, but there’s this whole unknown. The constitutional balance of who does what in the American government is shifting. And at the end of the day, the only thing we do know after both the first term and what’s happened so far even more so in the second term, is what [President Donald] Trump wants, Trump tends to get. 

So, Labor-H [the appropriations for Labor, HHS, Education and related agencies], like Sandhya just pointed out, the health bill is one of the hardest because there’s so much culture-war stuff in it. But, although, the Supreme Court has put some of that off the table. But I just don’t know how things play out in the current dynamic, which is unprecedented. 

Rovner: And of course, Labor-HHS also has the Department of Education in it. 

Kenen: The former Department of Education. 

Rovner: To say, which is in the process of being dismantled. So that’s going to make that even more controversial this year. Moving back to the present, separately we learned this week that the administration plans to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to destroy stocks of food and contraceptives and other medical devices rather than distribute them through some of the international aid programs that they’re canceling. Now, in the case of an estimated 500 tons of high-energy biscuits bought by USAID [the U.S. Agency for International Development] at the end of the Biden administration, you can almost understand it because they’re literally about to expire next week. According to The Atlantic, which first reported this story, this is only a small part of 60,000 metric tons of food already purchased from U.S. farmers and sitting in warehouses around the world, where the personnel who’d be in charge of distributing them would’ve been fired or transferred or called back to the U.S. 

At the same time, there are apparently also plans to destroy an estimated $12 million worth of HIV prevention supplies and contraceptives originally purchased as part of foreign aid programs rather than turn them over or even sell them to other countries or nonprofits. This feels like maybe the not most efficient use of taxpayer dollars? 

Luthra: I think this is something we’ve talked about before, but it really bears repeating. As a media ecosphere, we’ve sort of moved on from the really rapid dismantling of USAID. And it was not only without precedent. It was incredibly wasteful with the sudden way it was done, all of these things that were already purchased no longer able to be used, leases literally broken. And people had to pay more to break leases for offices set up in other countries, all these sorts of things that really could have already been used because they had been paid for. And instead, the money is simply lost. 

And I think the important thing for us to remember here is not only the immense waste financially to taxpayers but the real trust that has been lost, because these were promises made, things purchased, programs initiated, and when other countries see us pulling back in such a, again, I keep saying wasteful, but truly wasteful manner, it’s just really hard to ever imagine that the U.S. will be a reliable partner moving forward. 

Rovner: Yeah, absolutely. I understand the food thing to some extent because the food’s going to expire, but the medical supplies that could be distributed by somebody else? I’m still sort of searching for why that would make any sense in any universe, but yeah I guess this is the continuation of, We’re going to get rid of this aid and pretend that it never happened. 

Well, meanwhile, it’s only been a couple of weeks, but we’re starting to see the politics of that big Trump tax and spending measure play out. One big question is: Why didn’t Republicans listen to the usually very powerful hospital industry that usually gets its way but did not this time? And relatedly, will those Republicans who voted with Trump but against those powerful hospital interests do an about-face between now and when these Medicaid cuts are supposed to take effect? We’ve already seen Sen. Josh Hawley, the Republican from Missouri who loudly proclaimed his opposition to those Medicaid cuts before he voted for them anyway, introduce legislation to rescind them. So is this the new normal? I think, Joanne, you were sort of alluding to this, that you can now sort of vote for something and then immediately say: Didn’t mean to vote for that. Let’s undo it. 

Kenen: You could even do it before you vote for it, if they play it right. If Congress passes these things, we’re not going to pay attention. We’re already in that moment. But also, when I was working on a Medicaid piece, the magazine piece like four or five months ago, one of the most cynical people I know in Washington told me, he said, Oh, they’ll pass these huge cuts because they need the budget score to get the taxes through, and then they’ll start repealing it. And it seemed so cynical at the time, only he might’ve been right. 

So I don’t think they’re going to cut all of it. Republicans ideologically want a smaller Medicaid program. They want less spending. They want work requirements. You’re not going to see the whole thing go away. Could you see some retroactive tinkering or postponement or something? Yeah, you could. It’s too soon to know. Hospitals are the biggest employer in many, many congressional districts. This is a power— 

Rovner: Most of them. 

Kenen: Most, yeah. I don’t think it’s quite all, but like a lot. It’s the biggest single employer, and Medicaid is a big part of their income. And they still by law have to stabilize people who come in sick, and there’s emergency care and all sorts of other things, right? They do charity care. They do uninsured people. They do all sorts. They still treat people under certain circumstances even when they can’t pay. But right now, the threat of a primary opponent is more powerful than the threat of your local hospital being mad at you and harming health care access in your community. So much in the Republican world revolves around not getting the president mad enough that he threatens to get you beaten in a primary. We’ve seen that time and again already. 

Rovner: Right. And I will also say there’s precedent for this, for passing something and then unpassing it. Joanne and I covered in 19— 

Kenen: But it wasn’t the plan. 

Rovner: Yeah, I know. But remember, back in 1997 when they passed the Balanced Budget Act, every year for the next — was it three or four years? They did what we came to call “give back” bills. 

Kenen: Or punting, right? 

Rovner: Yeah, where they basically undid, they unspooled, some of those cuts, mostly because they’d cut more deeply than they’d intended to. And then we know with the Affordable Care Act, I’ve said this several times, they passed all of these financing mechanisms for it and then one by one repealed them. 

Kenen: And the individual mandate — I mean everything- 

Rovner: And the individual mandate, right. 

Kenen: They kept the dessert and they gave away everything. They undid everything that paid for the dessert, basically. 

Rovner: Right. Right. 

Kenen: And so it was the Cadillac — because people don’t remember anymore — the Cadillac tax, the insurance tax, the device tax. They all were like, One at a time! And they were repealed because lobbying works. 

Rovner: The tanning tax just went. 

Kenen: Right, right. So that dynamic existed, passing something unpopular and then redoing it, but the dynamic now really just comes — basically this is Donald Trump’s town. He has had a remarkable success in not only getting Congress to do what he wants but getting Congress to surrender some of its own powers, which have been around since Congress began. This is the way our government was set up. So there’s a very, very different dynamic, and it’s still unpredictable. None of us thought that the biggest crisis would be the [Jeffrey] Epstein case, right? Which is not a health story, and we don’t have to spend any time on it except to acknowledge— 

Rovner: Please. 

Kenen: —that there’s stuff going on in the background that people who had been extremely loyal to the president are now mad. And we don’t know how long. He’s very good at neutralizing things, too. He’s blaming it on the Democrats. 

But there is a different dynamic. Congress has less power because Congress gave up some of its power. Are they going to want to reassert themselves? There is no sign of it right now, but who knows what happens. I thought they would cut Medicaid. I thought they would do work requirements. I thought they would let the enhanced ACA subsidies expire. But I did not think the cuts would go this deep and this extensive — really transformationally pretty historic cuts. 

Rovner: Shefali, you wanted to say something? 

Kenen: Not pretty historic cuts, very historic cuts. Unprecedented. 

Luthra: I was thinking Joanne made such a good point about how, for all of the talk now about trying to mitigate that backlash, a lot of this is in line ideologically with what Republicans want. They do want a smaller Medicaid program. And I think a really interesting and still open question is whether they are willing and able to actually create policy that does reverse some of these cuts or not, and even if they do, if it’s sufficient to change voters’ perception, because we know that these cuts are very unpopular. Democrats are talking about them a lot. Hospitals are talking about them a lot. And just the failed attempt to repeal the ACA led to the 2018 midterms. And I think there is a real chance that this is the dominant topic when we head into next year’s elections. And it’s hard to say if Josh Hawley putting out a bill can undo that damage, so—. 

Rovner: Well, I’m so glad you mentioned that, because The Washington Post has a really interesting story about a clinic closing in rural Nebraska, with its owners publicly blaming the impending Medicaid cuts. Yet its Trump-supporting patients are just not buying it. Now in 2010, Republicans managed to hang the Affordable Care Act around Democrats’ necks well before the vast majority of the changes took place. Are Democrats going to be able to do that now? There’s a lot of people saying, Oh, well, they’re not going to be able to blame this on the Republicans, because most of it won’t have happened yet. This is really going to be a who-manages-to-push-their-narrative, right? 

Kenen: This really striking thing about that story is that the people who were losing access, they’re not losing their Medicaid yet, but they’re losing access to the only clinic within several — they have to drive hours now to get medical care. And when they were told this was because the Republican Congress and President Trump, they said, Oh no, it can’t be. First of all, a lot of people just don’t pay attention to the news. We know that. And then if you’re paying attention to news that never says anything negative about the president, that blames everything on Joe Biden no matter — if it rains yesterday, it was his fault, right? 

So the sort of gap between — there are certain things that are matters of opinion and interpretation, and there are certain things that are matters of fact, but those facts are not getting through. And we do not know whether the Democrats will be able to get them through, because the resistance, it’s almost magical, right? My clinic closed because of a Republican Medicaid bill? Oh no, it’s hospital greed. They just don’t want to treat us anymore. They just, it doesn’t compute, because it doesn’t fit into what they have been reading and hearing, to the extent that they read and hear. 

Rovner: Sandhya, you want to add something? 

Raman: The one thing that as I’ve been asking around on Capitol Hill about the Hawley bill — and there was one from Sen. Rand Paul, and a House counterpart, from [Rep.] Greg Steube, does sort of the opposite — it wants to move up the timeline for one of the provisions. So one important thing to consider is neither of these bills have had a lot of buy-in from other members of Congress. They’ve been introduced, but the people that I’ve talked to have said, I’m not sure. 

And I think something interesting that Sen. Thom Tillis had said was: If Republicans had a problem with what some of the impacts would be, then why were they denying that there would be an effect on rural health or some of those things to begin with? And I think a lot of it will take some time to judge to see if people will move the needle, but if we’re going to change any of these deadlines through not reconciliation, you need 60 votes in the Senate and you’ll need Democrats on board as well as Republicans. And I think one interesting thing to watch there is that I think some of the Democrats are also looking at this in a political way. If there’s a Republican that has a bill that is trying to tamp down some of the effects of their signature reconciliation law, do they want to help them and sign on to that bill or kind of illustrate the effects of the bill before the midterms or whatever? 

Rovner: A lot more politics to come. 

Raman: Yeah. Yeah. 

Rovner: Meanwhile, over at HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services], there is also plenty of news. Many of the workers who’ve been basically in limbo since April when a judge temporarily halted the Trump administration’s efforts to downsize have now been formally let go after the Supreme Court last week lifted that injunction. What are we hearing about how things are going over at HHS? We’ve talked sort of every week about this sort of continuing chaos. I assume that the hammer falling is not helping. It’s not adding to things settling down. 

Kenen: No. And then Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] just fired two top aides because — no one knows exactly the full story but it’s — and I certainly do not know the full story. But what I have read is that the personality conflict with his top aide — and that happens in offices, and he’s not the first person in the history of HHS to have people who don’t get along with one another. But it’s just more unsettled stuff in an agency already in flux, because now in addition to all these people being let go in all sorts of programs and programs being rolled back, you also have some leadership chaos at the top. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, HHS Secretary Kennedy took office with vows to eliminate the financial influence of Big Pharma, Big Food, and other industries with potential conflicts of interests. But shoutout here to my KFF Health News colleague Stephanie Armour, who has a story this week about how the new vested interests at HHS are the wellness industry. Kennedy and four top advisers, three of whom have been hired into the department, wrote Stephanie, quote, “earned at least $3.2 million in fees and salaries from their work opposing Big Pharma and promoting wellness in 2022 and 2023, according to a KFF Health News review of financial disclosure forms filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics and the Department of Health and Human Services; published media reports; and tax forms filed with the IRS. That total doesn’t include revenue from speaking fees, the sale of wellness products, or other income sources for which data is not publicly available.” Have we basically just traded one form of regulatory capture for another form of regulatory capture? 

Kenen: And one isn’t covered by insurance. Some of it is, but there’s a lot of stuff in the, quote, “wellness” industry that providers and so forth, certain services are covered if there’s licensed people and an evidence base for them, but a lot of it isn’t. And these providers charge a lot of money out-of-pocket, too. 

Rovner: And they make a lot of money. This is a totally — unlike Big Pharma, Big Food, and Big Medicine, which is regulated, Big Wellness is largely not regulated. 

Kenen: I think Stephanie — that was a really good piece — and I think Stephanie said it was, what, $6.3 trillion industry? Was that— 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s huge. 

Kenen: Am I remembering that number right? It’s largely unregulated. Many of the products have never gone through any review for safety or efficacy. And insurance doesn’t cover a lot of it. It doesn’t mean it’s all bad. There are certain things that are helpful, but as an industry overall, it leaves something for us to worry about. 

Rovner: Well, in HHS-adjacent breaking news that could turn out to be nothing or something really big, an appeals court in Richmond on Tuesday ruled 2-1 that West Virginia may in fact limit access to the abortion pill, even though it’s approved by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration]. It’s the first time a federal appeals court has basically said that states can effectively override the FDA’s nationwide drug approval authority. And it’s the question that the Supreme Court has already ducked once, in that case out of Texas last year where the justices ruled that the doctors who were suing didn’t have standing, so they didn’t have to get to that question. But, Shefali, this has implications well beyond abortion, right? 

Luthra: Oh, absolutely. We are seeing efforts across the country to restrict access to certain medications that are FDA-approved. Abortion pills are the obvious one, but, of course, we can think about gender-affirming care. We can think about access to all sorts of other therapeutics and even vaccines that are now sort of coming under political fire. And if FDA approval means less than state restrictions, as we are seeing in this case, as we very possibly could see as these kinds of arguments and challenges make their way to the Supreme Court. The case you alluded to earlier with the doctors who didn’t have standing is still alive, just with different plaintiffs now. And so these questions will probably come back. There are just such vast ramifications for any kind of medication that could be politicized, and it’s something that industry at large has been very worried about since this abortion pill became such a big question. And it is something that this decision is not going to alleviate. 

Rovner: Yes. Speaking of Big Pharma, they’re completely freaked out by this possibility because it does have implications for every FDA-approved drug. 

Luthra: And they invest so much money in trying to get products that have FDA approval. There’s a real promise that with this global gold standard, you will be able to keep a drug on the market and really make a lot of money on it. There’s also obviously concerns for birth control, which we aren’t seeing legally restricted in the same way as abortion yet, but it is something that is so deeply subject to politics and culture-war issues that that’s something that we could see coming down the line if trends continue the way they are. 

Rovner: Well, we will watch that space. Moving on. Wednesday was the third anniversary of the federal 988 federal crisis line, which has so far served an estimated 16 million people with mental health crises via call, text, or chat. An estimated 10% of those calls were routed through a special service for LGBTQ+ youth, which is being cut off today by the Trump administration, which accused the program, run by the Trevor Project, as, quote, “radical gender ideology.” Now, LGBTQ+ youth are among those at the highest risk for suicide, which is exactly what the 988 program was created to prevent. Yet there’s been very little coverage of this. I had to actually go searching to find out exactly what happened here. Is this just kind of another day in the Trump administration? 

Raman: I think a lot of it stems back to some of those initial executive orders related to gender ideology and DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] and things like that. The Trump administration’s kind of argument is that it shouldn’t be siloed. It should be all general. There shouldn’t be sort of special treatment, even though we do have specialized services for veterans who call in to these services and things. But I— 

Rovner: Although that was only saved when members of Congress complained. 

Raman: Yeah. But I do think that when we have so much happening in this space focused on LGBTQ issues, it’s easier for things to get missed. I think the one thing that I did notice was that California announced yesterday that they were going to step up to do a partnership with the Trevor Project to at least — the LGBTQ youth calling from California to any of those local 988 centers would be reaching people that have been trained a little bit more in cultural competency and dealing with LGBTQ youth. But that’s not going to be all the states and it’s going to take time. Yeah. 

Rovner: Yeah, we’re going to continue to see this cobbled together state by state. It feels like increasingly what services are available to you are going to be very much dependent on where you live. That’s always been true, but it feels like it’s getting more and more and more true. Shefali, I see you nodding. 

Luthra: Something you alluded to that I think bears making explicit is public health interventions are typically targeted toward people who are in greater danger or are at greater risk. That’s not discrimination — that’s public health efficiency. And suggesting that we shouldn’t have resources targeted toward people at higher risk of suicide is counter to what public health experts have been arguing for a very long time. And that’s just something that I think really bears noting and keeping in mind as we see what the impact of this is moving forward. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think that’s a very good point. Thank you. 

Well, speaking of popular things that are going away, a federal judge appointed by President Trump last week struck down the last-minute Biden administration rule from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that tried to bar medical debt from appearing on credit reports. This had been hailed as a major step for the 100 million Americans with medical debt, which is not exactly the same as buying a car or a TV that you really can’t afford. People don’t go into medical debt saying, Oh, I think I’m going to go run up a big medical bill that I can’t pay. But this strikes me as yet another way this administration is basically inflicting punishment on its own voters. Yes? 

Kenen: Yes, except we just don’t know. Some red states are so red that you don’t need every voter. We don’t know who actually votes, and we don’t know whether people make these connections, right? What we were talking about before with Medicaid — do they understand that this is something that President Trump not just urged but basically ordered Congress to do? So do people pay attention? How many people even know if their medical debt is or is not on their credit report? They know they have the medical debt, but I’m not sure everybody understands all the implication, particularly if you’re used to being in debt. You may be somebody who’s lost a job or couldn’t pay your mortgage or couldn’t pay your rent. Some of the people who have medical debt have so many other financial — not all — that it’s just part of a debt soup and it’s just one more ingredient. 

So how it plays out and how it’s perceived? It’s part of this unpredictable mix. Trump is openly talking about gerrymandering more, and so it won’t matter what voters do, because they’ll have more Republican seats. That’s just something he’s floating. We don’t know whether it’ll actually happen, but he floated it in public, so— 

Rovner: So much of this is flooding the zone, that people — there’s so much happening that people have no idea who’s responsible for what. There’s always the pollster question: Is your life better or worse than it was last year? Or four years ago, whatever. And I think that when you do so much so fast, it’s pretty hard to affix blame to anybody. 

Raman: And most people aren’t single-issue voters. They’re not going to the polls saying, My medical debt is back on my credit report. There’s so many other things, even if with the last election, health care was not the number one issue for most voters. So it’s difficult to say if it will be the top issue for the next election or the next one after that. 

And I guess just piggybacking that a lot of the times when there’s these big changes, they don’t take effect for a while. So it’s easier to rationalize, Oh, it may have been this person or that person or the senator then, or who was president at a different time, just because of how long it takes to see the effects in your daily life. 

Rovner: Politics is messy. All right, well, this is as much time for the news as we have this week? Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We’ll put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Shefali, why don’t you go first this week? 

Luthra: Sure. My piece is from The New York Times, by Apoorva Mandavilli. The headline is “Trump Official Accused PEPFAR of Funding Abortions in Russia. It Wasn’t True.” And she takes a look at when the head of the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] told the Senate that PEPFAR had spent almost $10 million advising Russian doctors on abortions and gender analysis. And she goes through and says this isn’t true. PEPFAR hasn’t been in Russia. They cannot fund abortions. And she talks with people who were there and can say this simply isn’t true and this is very easy to disprove. And I like this piece because it’s just a reminder that a lot of things are being said about government spending that are not true. And it is a public service to remind readers that they are very easily disproven. 

Rovner: Yeah, and to go ahead and do that. Sandhya. 

Raman: My extra credit is “‘We’re Creating Miscarriages With Medicine’: Abortion Lessons From Sweden,” and it’s from Cecilia Nowell for The Nation, my co-fellow through AHCJ [the Association of Health Care Journalists] this year. Cecilia went to Kiruna, which is an Arctic village in Sweden, to look at how they’re using mifepristone for abortions up to 22 weeks in pregnancy, compared to up to 10 weeks in the U.S. And it’s a really interesting look at how they’re navigating rural access to abortion in very remote areas. Almost all abortions in Sweden are done through medication abortion, and while the majority here are in the 60% versus high 90s. So just interesting how they’re taking their approach there as rural access is limited here. 

Rovner: Really interesting story. Joanne. 

Kenen: This is a piece in The New Yorker by Dhruv Khullar, and it’s “Can A.I. Find Cures for Untreatable Diseases — Using Drugs We Already Have?” And what I found interesting, we’ve been hearing about: Can AI do this? It’s sort of been in the air since AI came around. But what was so interesting about this article is there’s a nonprofit that is actually doing it, and they have this sort of whole sort of hierarchy of why a drug may be promising and why a disease may be a good target. And then the AI look at genetics and diseases, and they have four or five factors they look at. And then there’s this just sort of hierarchy of which are the ones we can make accessible. 

So A, it’s actually happening. B, it has promise. It’s not a panacea, but there’s promise. And C, it’s being done by a nonprofit. It’s not a cocktail for an individual patient. It’s trying to figure out: What are the smartest drugs to be looking at and what can they treat? And they give examples of people who have gone into remission from rare diseases. And also it says there are 18,000 diseases and only 9,000 have treatment. So this is huge, right? Rare diseases may only affect a few people, but there are lots of rare diseases. So cumulatively some of the people they strike are young. So for someone who doesn’t always read about AI, I found this one interesting. 

Rovner: Also, we read somebody’s story about how AI is terrible for this, that, and the other thing. It is very promising for an awful lot of things. 

Kenen: No. Right. 

Rovner: There’s a reason that everybody’s looking at it. 

All right, my extra credit this week is also from The New York Times. It’s called “UnitedHealth’s Campaign to Quiet Critics,” by David Enrich, who’s The Times’ deputy investigations editor and, notably, author of a book on attacks on press freedoms. That’s because the story chronicles how UnitedHealth, the mega health company we have talked about a lot on this show, is taking a cue from President Trump and increasingly taking its critics to court, in part by claiming that critical reporting about the company risks inciting further violence like the Midtown Manhattan murder of United executive Brian Thompson last year. 

I hasten to add, this isn’t a matter of publications making stuff up. United, as we have pointed out, is a subject of myriad civil and criminal investigations into potential Medicare fraud as well as antitrust violations. This is still another chapter unfolding in the big United story. 

OK, that is this week’s show. Thanks as always to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. If you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us to review. That helps other people find us, too. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks hanging these days? Shefali? 

Raman: I’m at Bluesky, @shefali. 

Rovner: Sandhya. 

Raman: I’m at X and at Bluesky, @SandhyaWrites. 

Rovner: Joanne? 

Kenen: I’m mostly at Bluesky, @joannekenen.bsky, and I’ve been posting things more on LinkedIn, and there are more health people hanging out there. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).