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).

Pero no se trataba de una enfermedad misteriosa. Como enfermero anestesista, ya jubilado, Sergott sabía que tenía anemia, una deficiencia de glóbulos rojos. En su caso, era consecuencia de una afección hereditaria por la que tenía hemorragias nasales casi a diario y le bajaba la hemoglobina, la proteína de los glóbulos rojos que transporta oxígeno a todo el cuerpo.

Pero al consultar con los médicos sobre su cansancio, Sergott, quien vive en Westminster, Maryland, descubrió que muchos no sabían cómo ayudarlo. Le aconsejaban que tomara suplementos de hierro, que suele ser la primera línea de tratamiento para la anemia.

Sin embargo, como muchas personas mayores, le resultaba difícil tolerar de cuatro a seis pastillas al día.

Algunos pacientes que toman hierro se quejan de estreñimiento intenso o calambres estomacales. Sergott sentía náuseas todo el tiempo. Y las tabletas de hierro no siempre funcionan.

Después de casi 15 años, encontró una solución. Michael Auerbach, hematólogo y oncólogo, y codirector del Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders en Baltimore, sugirió que Sergott recibiera hierro por vía intravenosa y no por la boca.

Ahora, el hombre de 78 años recibe una infusión de una hora cuando sus niveles de hemoglobina y otros marcadores indican que la necesita, generalmente tres veces al año. “Es como llenar el tanque de gasolina”, dijo. Sus síntomas se revierten y “me siento maravillosamente bien”.

La historia de Sergott refleja una afección común que habitualmente se desestima y que no solo puede lesionar la calidad de vida de los adultos mayores, sino también tener graves consecuencias para la salud, como caídas, fracturas y hospitalizaciones.

Los síntomas de la anemia —cansancio, dolor de cabeza, calambres en las piernas, frío, disminución de la capacidad para hacer ejercicio, confusión mental— a menudo se atribuyen al envejecimiento mismo, afirmó William Ershler, hematólogo e investigador. Más aún porque algunas personas con anemia no presentan síntomas.

“La gente dice: ‘Me siento débil, pero todos los de mi edad se sienten débiles’”, explicó Ershler.

Los médicos a menudo no reconocen la anemia, aunque es probable que los niveles de hemoglobina se incluyen en las historias clínicas de sus pacientes: suele ser parte del hemograma completo que se solicita de manera rutinaria durante las consultas médicas.

“Los pacientes vienen a la clínica, se hacen análisis de sangre y no pasa nada”, dijo.

La anemia afecta al 12,5% de las personas mayores de 60 años, según los datos más recientes de la National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, y la tasa aumenta a partir de esa edad.

Pero esta cifra podría ser una subestimación.

En un estudio publicado en el Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Ershler y sus colegas examinaron las historias clínicas electrónicas de casi 2.000 pacientes ambulatorios mayores de 65 años de Inova, el gran sistema de salud con sede en el norte de Virginia, del que se jubiló recientemente.

Según los resultados de los análisis de sangre, la prevalencia de anemia fue mucho mayor: aproximadamente uno de cada 5 pacientes presentaba anemia, con niveles de hemoglobina por debajo de lo normal, según la definición de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS).

Sin embargo, solo alrededor de un tercio de esos pacientes tenían la anemia debidamente documentada en sus historias médicas.

La anemia “merece nuestra atención, pero no siempre la recibe”, afirmó George Kuchel, geriatra de la Universidad de Connecticut, quien no se sorprendió por los hallazgos.

Esto se debe en parte a que la anemia tiene muchas causas, algunas más tratables que otras. En quizás un tercio de los casos, se debe a una deficiencia nutricional, generalmente falta de hierro, pero a veces de vitamina B12 o folato (llamado ácido fólico en forma sintética).

Las personas mayores pueden tener menos apetito o dificultades para comprar alimentos y cocinar. Pero la anemia también puede ser consecuencia de la pérdida de sangre por úlceras, pólipos, diabetes y otras causas de hemorragia interna.

La cirugía también puede provocar deficiencia de hierro. Mary Dagold, de 83 años, bibliotecaria jubilada de Pikesville, Maryland, tuvo tres operaciones abdominales en 2019. Estuvo postrada durante semanas y usó una sonda para alimentarse por meses. Incluso después de recuperarse, “la anemia no desapareció”, contó.

Recuerda que se sentía agotada todo el tiempo. “Y sabía que no estaba pensando como siempre”, agregó. “No podía leer ni una novela”. Tanto su médico de cabecera como Auerbach le advirtieron que era poco probable que las tabletas de hierro la ayudaran.

Estas tabletas, de venta libre, son económicas. El hierro intravenoso, que se receta cada vez con más frecuencia, puede costar entre $350 y $2.400 por infusión, dependiendo de la formulación, explicó Auerbach.

Para algunos pacientes una sola dosis es suficiente, mientras que otros necesitarán un tratamiento regular. Medicare lo cubre cuando las tabletas son difíciles de tolerar o ineficaces.

Para Dagold, una infusión intravenosa de hierro de 25 minutos cada unas cinco semanas ha marcado una diferencia sorprendente. “Tarda unos días, y luego te sientes lo suficientemente bien como para retomar tu vida diaria”, dijo. Ha regresado a su clase de aeróbic acuático cuatro días a la semana.

En otros casos, la anemia se debe a afecciones crónicas como enfermedades cardíacas, insuficiencia renal, trastornos de la médula ósea o afecciones inflamatorias del intestino.

“Estas personas no tienen deficiencia de hierro, pero no pueden procesarlo para producir glóbulos rojos”, explicó Kuchel. Dado que los suplementos de hierro no son efectivos, los médicos intentan abordar la anemia tratando las enfermedades subyacentes.

Otra razón para prestar atención: “La pérdida de hierro puede ser el primer presagio de cáncer de colon y de estómago”, enfatizó Kuchel.

Sin embargo, en cerca de un tercio de los pacientes, la presencia de la anemia es inexplicable. “Hemos hecho todo lo posible y no tenemos idea de qué la causa”, dijo.

Aprender más sobre las causas y los tratamientos de la anemia podría prevenir muchos problemas en el futuro. Además de su asociación con caídas y fracturas, “puede aumentar la gravedad de afecciones crónicas: corazón, pulmón, riñón, hígado”, dijo Auerbach.

“Si es realmente grave y la hemoglobina alcanza niveles potencialmente mortales, puede causar un ataque cardíaco o un derrame cerebral”. Sin embargo, entre las incógnitas se encuentra si el tratamiento temprano de la anemia y el restablecimiento de niveles normales de hemoglobina pueden prevenir afecciones posteriores.

Aun así, “se están logrando avances en este campo”, afirmó Ershler, señalando un taller del Instituto Nacional sobre el Envejecimiento sobre anemia inexplicable realizado el año pasado.

La Sociedad Americana de Hematología ha designado un comité para el diagnóstico y tratamiento de la deficiencia de hierro y planea publicar nuevas directrices el próximo año. El Iron Consortium at Oregon Health & Science University convocó un panel internacional sobre el manejo de la deficiencia de hierro y publicó recientemente sus recomendaciones en The Lancet Haematology.

Mientras tanto, muchos pacientes mayores pueden acceder a sus resultados del hemograma completo y a sus niveles de hemoglobina. La OMS define 13 gramos de hemoglobina por decilitro como normal para los hombres y 12 para las mujeres no embarazadas. (Aunque algunos hematólogos argumentan que estos umbrales son demasiado bajos).

Preguntar a los profesionales de salud sobre los niveles de hemoglobina y hierro, o utilizar un portal para pacientes para consultar las cifras ellos mismos, podría ayudarlos a hablar con sus médicos no solo de la fatiga u otros síntomas como consecuencias inevitables del envejecimiento.

Quizás sean signos de anemia, y quizás sea tratable.

“Lo más probable es que te hayas hecho un hemograma completo en los últimos seis meses o un año”, dijo Kuchel. “Si tu hemoglobina está bien, ¡genial!”.

Pero agregó que “si está realmente fuera de los límites normales o ha cambiado en comparación con el año pasado, debes preguntar”.

La sección The New Old Age se produce a través de una alianza con The New York Times.

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).

AbbVie said Monday that it would pay up to $2.1 billion to acquire Capstan Therapeutics, a startup developing CAR-T therapies for autoimmune conditions, fibrosis, and cancer. 

AbbVie will pay up to $2.1 billion in cash when the deal closes, according to a press release. The companies did not give further details about the financial terms or a timeline for completing the acquisition. 

Capstan launched in 2022 and has raised around $340 million from OrbiMed, Vida Ventures, RA Capital, Polaris Partners, and the venture teams at Pfizer, Bayer, Eli Lilly and Company, and Bristol Myers Squibb. It was last valued at around $500 million, according to Pitchbook. 

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.

The Supreme Court this week ruled in favor of Tennessee’s law banning most gender-affirming care for minors — a law similar to those in two dozen other states.

Meanwhile, the Senate is still hoping to complete work on its version of President Donald Trump’s huge budget reconciliation bill before the July Fourth break. But deeper cuts to the Medicaid program than those included in the House-passed bill could prove difficult to swallow for moderate senators.

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

Panelists

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

@alicemiranda.bsky.social

Read Alice's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

@SandhyaWrites.bsky.social

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Supreme Court’s ruling on gender-affirming care for transgender minors was relatively limited in its scope. The majority did not address the broader question about whether transgender individuals are protected under federal anti-discrimination laws and, as with the court’s decision overturning the constitutional right to an abortion, left states the power to determine what care trans youths may receive.
• The Senate GOP unveiled its version of the budget reconciliation bill this week. Defying expectations that senators would soften the bill’s impact on health care, the proposal would make deeper cuts to Medicaid, largely at the expense of hospitals and other providers. Republican senators say those cuts would allow them more flexibility to renew and extend many of Trump’s tax cuts.
• The Medicare trustees are out this week with a new forecast for the program that covers primarily those over age 65, predicting insolvency by 2033 — even sooner than expected. There was bipartisan support for including a crackdown on a provider practice known as upcoding in the reconciliation bill, a move that could have saved a bundle in government spending. But no substantive cuts to Medicare spending ultimately made it into the legislation.
• With the third anniversary of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade approaching, the movement to end abortion has largely coalesced around one goal: stopping people from accessing the abortion pill mifepristone.

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’ “The Bureaucrat and the Billionaire: Inside DOGE’s Chaotic Takeover of Social Security,” by Alexandra Berzon, Nicholas Nehamas, and Tara Siegel Bernard.  

Victoria Knight: The New York Times’ “They Asked an A.I. Chatbot Questions. The Answers Sent Them Spiraling,” by Kashmir Hill.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Wired’s “What Tear Gas and Rubber Bullets Do to the Human Body,” by Emily Mullin.  

Sandhya Raman: North Carolina Health News and The Charlotte Ledger’s “Ambulance Companies Collect Millions by Seizing Wages, State Tax Refunds,” by Michelle Crouch.  

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• KFF’s “KFF Health Tracking Poll: Views of the One Big Beautiful Bill,” by Ashley Kirzinger, Lunna Lopes, Marley Presiado, Julian Montalvo III, and Mollyann Brodie.
• The Associated Press’ “Trump Administration Gives Personal Data of Immigrant Medicaid Enrollees to Deportation Officials,” by Kimberly Kindy and Amanda Seitz.
• The Guardian’s “VA Hospitals Remove Politics and Marital Status From Guidelines Protecting Patients From Discrimination,” by Aaron Glantz.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Supreme Court Upholds Bans on Gender-Affirming Care

[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, June 20, 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 Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Sandhya Raman: Good morning. 

Rovner: And Victoria Knight of Axios News. 

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone. 

Rovner: No interview this week but more than enough news to make up for it, so we will go right to it. It is June. That means it is time for the Supreme Court to release its biggest opinions of the term. On Wednesday, the justices upheld Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming medical care for trans minors. And presumably that means similar laws in two dozen other states can stand as well. Alice, what does this mean in real-world terms? 

Ollstein: So, this is a blow to people’s ability to access gender-affirming care as minors, even if their parents support them transitioning. But it’s not necessarily as restrictive a ruling as it could have been. The court could have gone farther. And so supporters of access to gender-affirming care see a silver lining in that the court didn’t go far enough to rule that all laws discriminating against transgender people are fine and constitutional. A few justices more or less said that in their separate opinions, but the majority opinion just stuck with upholding this law, basically saying that it doesn’t discriminate based on gender or transgender status. 

Rovner: Which feels a little odd. 

Ollstein: Yes. So, obviously, many people have said, How can you say that laws that only apply to transgender people are not discriminatory? So, been some back-and-forth about that. But the majority opinion said, Well, we don’t have to reach this far and decide right now if laws that discriminate against transgender people are constitutional, because this law doesn’t. They said it discriminates based on diagnosis — so anyone of any gender who has the diagnosis of gender dysphoria for medications, hormones, that’s not a gender discrimination. But obviously the only people who do have those diagnoses are transgender, and so it was a logic that the dissenters, the three progressive dissenters, really ripped into. 

Rovner: And just to be clear, we’ve heard about, there are a lot of laws that ban sort of not-reversible types of treatments for minors, but you could take hormones or puberty blockers. This Tennessee law covers basically everything for trans care, right? 

Ollstein: That’s right, but only the piece about medications was challenged up to the Supreme Court, not the procedures and surgeries, which are much more rare for minors anyways. But it is important to note that some of the conservatives on the court said they would’ve gone further, and they basically said, This law does discriminate against transgender kids, and that is fine with us. And they said the court should have gone further and made that additional argument, which they did not at this time. 

Rovner: Well, I’m sure the court will get another chance sometime in the future. While we’re on the subject of gender-affirming care in the courts, in Texas on Wednesday, conservative federal district judge Matthew Kacsmaryk — that’s the same judge who unsuccessfully tried to repeal the FDA’s [Food and Drug Administration’s] approval of the abortion pill a couple of years ago — has now ruled that the Biden administration’s expansion of the HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act] medical privacy rules to protect records on abortion and gender-affirming care from being used for fishing expeditions by conservative prosecutors was an overreach, and he slapped a nationwide injunction on those rules. What could this mean if it’s ultimately upheld? 

Ollstein: I kind of see this in some ways like the Trump administration getting rid of the EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act] guidance, where the underlying law is still there. This is sort of an interpretation and a guidance that was put out on top of it, saying, We interpret HIPAA, which has been around a long time, to apply in these contexts, because we’re in this brave new world where we don’t have Roe v. Wade anymore and states are seeking records from other states to try to prosecute people for circumventing abortion bans. And so, that wasn’t written into statute before, because that never happened before. 

And so the Biden administration was attempting to respond to things like that by putting out this rule, which has now been blocked nationwide. I’m sure litigation will continue. There are also efforts in the courts to challenge HIPAA more broadly. And so, I would be interested in tracking how this plays into that. 

Rovner: Yeah. There’s plenty of efforts sort of on this front. And certainly, with the advent of AI [artificial intelligence], I think that medical privacy is going to play a bigger role sort of as we go forward. All right. Moving on. While the Supreme Court is preparing to wrap up for the term, Congress is just getting revved up. Next up for the Senate is the budget reconciliation, quote, “Big Beautiful Bill,” with most of President [Donald] Trump’s agenda in it. This week, the Senate Finance Committee unveiled its changes to the House-passed bill, and rather than easing back on the Medicaid cuts, as many had expected in a chamber where just a few moderates can tank the entire bill, the Finance version makes the cuts even larger. Do we have any idea what’s going on here? 

Knight: Well, I think mostly they want to give themselves more flexibility in order to pursue some of the tax policies that President Trump really wants. And so they need more savings, basically, to be able to do that and be able to do it for a longer amount of years. And so that’s kind of what I’ve heard, is they wanted to give themselves more room to play around with the policy, see what fits where. But a lot of people were surprised because the Senate is usually more moderate on things, but in this case I think it’s partially because they specifically looked at a provision called provider taxes. It’s a way that states can help fund their Medicaid programs, and so it’s a tax levied on providers. So I think they see that as maybe — it could still affect people’s benefits, but it’s aimed at providers — and so maybe that’s part of it as well. 

Rovner: Well, of course aiming at providers is not doing them very much good, because hospitals are basically freaking out over this. Now there is talk of creating a rural hospital slush fund to maybe try to quell some of the complaints from hospitals and make some of those moderates feel better about voting for a bill that the Congressional Budget Office still says takes health insurance and food aid from the poor to give tax cuts to the rich. But if the Senate makes a slush fund big enough to really protect those hospitals, wouldn’t that just eliminate the Medicaid savings that they need to pay for those tax cuts, Victoria? That’s what you were just saying. That’s why they made the Medicaid cuts bigger. 

Knight: Yeah. I think there’s quite a few solutions that people are throwing around and proposing. Yeah, but, exactly. Depending on if they do a provider relief fund, yeah, then the savings may need to go to that. I’ve also heard — I was talking to senators last week, and some of them were like, I’d rather just go back to the House’s version. So the House’s version of the bill put a freeze on states’ ability to raise the provider tax, but the Senate version incrementally lowers the amount of provider tax they can levy over years. The House just freezes it and doesn’t allow new ones to go higher. Some senators are like: Actually, can we just do that, go back to that? And we could live with that. 

Even Sen. Josh Hawley, who has been one of the biggest vocal voices on concern for rural hospitals and concern for Medicaid cuts, he told me, Freeze would be OK with me. And so, I don’t know. I could see them maybe doing that, but we’ll see. There’s probably more negotiations going on over the weekend, and they’re also going to start the “Byrd bath” procedure, which basically determines whether provisions in the bill are related to the budget or not and can stay in the bill. And so, there’s actually gender-affirming care and abortion provisions in the bill that may get thrown out because of that. So— 

Rovner: Yeah, this is just for those who don’t follow reconciliation the way we do, the “Byrd bath,” named for the former Sen. [Robert] Byrd, who put this rule in that said, Look, if you’re going to do this big budget bill with only 50 votes, it’s got to be related to the budget. So basically, the parliamentarian makes those determinations. And what we call the “Byrd bath” is when those on both sides of a provision that’s controversial go to the parliamentarian in advance and make their case. And the parliamentarian basically tells them in private what she’s going to do — like, This can stay in, or, This will have to go out. If the parliamentarian rules it has to go out, then it needs to overcome a budget point of order that needs 60 votes. So basically, that’s why stuff gets thrown out, unless they think it’s popular enough that it could get 60 votes. And sorry, that’s my little civics lesson for the day. Finish what you were saying, Victoria. 

Knight: No, that was a perfect explanation. Thank you. But I was just saying, yeah, I think that there are still some negotiations going on for the Medicaid stuff. And where also, you have to remember, this has to go back to the House. And so it passed the House with the provider tax freeze, and that still required negotiations with some of the more moderate members of House Republicans. And some of them started expressing their concern about the Senate going further. And so they still need to — it has to go back through the House again, so they need to make these Senate moderates happy and House moderates happy. There’s also the fiscal conservatives that want deeper cuts. So there’s a lot of people within the caucus that they need to strike a balance. And so, I don’t know if this will be the final way the bill looks yet. 

Rovner: Although, I think I say this every week, we have all of these Republicans saying: I won’t vote for this bill. I won’t vote for this bill. And then they inevitably turn around and vote for this bill. Do we believe that any of these people really would tank this bill? 

Knight: That’s a great point. Yeah. Sandhya, go ahead. 

Raman: There are at least a couple that I don’t think, anything that we do, they’re not going to change their mind. There is no courting of Rep. [Thomas] Massie in the House, because he’s not going to vote for it. I feel like in the Senate it’s going to be really hard to get Rand Paul on board, just because he does not want to raise the deficit. I think the others, it’s a little bit more squishy, depends kind of what the parliamentarian pulls out. And I guess also one thing I’m thinking about is if the things they pull out are big cost-savers and they have to go back to the drawing board to generate more savings. We’ve only had a few of the things that they’ve advised on so far, but it’s not health, and we still need to see — health are the big points. So, I think— 

Rovner: Well, they haven’t started the “Byrd bath” on the Finance provisions— 

Raman: Yes, or— 

Rovner: —which is where all the health stuff is. 

Raman: Yeah. 

Knight: But that is supposed to be over the weekend. It’s supposed to start over the weekend. 

Raman: Yes. 

Rovner: Right. 

Raman: Yeah. So, I think, depending on that, we will see. Historically, we have had people kind of go back and forth. And even with the House, there were people that voted for it that then now said, Well, I actually don’t support that anymore. So I think just going back to just what the House said might not be the solution, either. They have to find some sort of in-between before their July Fourth deadline. 

Rovner: I was just going to say, so does this thing happen before July Fourth? I noticed that that Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff said: Continue. It needs to be on the president’s desk by July Fourth. Which seems pretty nigh impossible. But I could see it getting through the Senate by July Fourth. I’m seeing some nods. Is that still the goal? 

Knight: Yeah. I think that’s the goal. That’s what Senate Majority Leader [John] Thune has been telling people. He wants to try to pass it by mid-, or I think start the process by, midweek. And then it’s going to have to go through a “vote-a-rama.” So Democrats will be able to offer a ton of amendments. It’ll probably go through the night, and that’ll last a while. And so, I saw some estimate, maybe it’ll get passed next weekend through the Senate, but that’s probably if everything goes as it’s supposed to go. So, something could mess that up. 

But, yeah, I think the factor here that has — I think everyone’s kind of been like: They’re not going to be able to do it. They’re not going to be able to do it. With the House, especially — the House is so rowdy. But then, when Trump calls people and tells them to vote for it, they do it. There’s a few, yeah, like Rand Paul and Massie — they’re basically the only ones that will not vote when Trump tells them to. But other than that — so if he wants it done, I do think he can help push to get it done. 

Rovner: Yeah. I noticed one change, as I was going through, in the Senate bill from the House bill is that they would raise the debt ceiling to $5 trillion. It’s like, that’s a pretty big number. Yeah. I’m thinking that alone is what says Rand Paul is a no. Before we move on, one more thing I feel like we can’t repeat enough: This bill doesn’t just cut Medicaid spending. It also takes aim at the Affordable Care Act and even Medicare. And a bunch of new polls this week show that even Republicans aren’t super excited about this bill. Are Republican members of Congress going to notice this at some point? Yeah, the president is popular, but this bill certainly isn’t. 

Raman: When you look at some of the town halls that they’ve had — or tried to have — over the last couple months and then scaled back because there was a lot of pushback directly on this, the Medicaid provisions, they have to be aware. But I think if you look at that polling, if you look at the people that identify as MAGA within Republicans, it’s popular for them. It’s just more broadly less popular. So I think that’s part of it, but— 

Ollstein: I think that people are very opposed to the policies in the bill, but I also think people are very overwhelmed and distracted right now. There’s a lot going on, and so I’m not sure there will be the same national focus on this the way there was in 2017 when people really rallied in huge ways to protect the Affordable Care Act and push Congress not to overturn it. And so I think maybe that could be a factor in that outrage not manifesting as much. I also think that’s a reason they’re trying to do this quickly, that July Fourth deadline, before those protest movements have an opportunity to sort of organize and coalesce. 

Just real quickly on the rural hospital slush fund, I saw some smart people comparing it to a throwback, the high-risk pools model, in that unless you pour a ton of funding into it, it’s not going to solve the problem. And if you pour a ton of funding into it, you don’t have the savings that created the problem in the first place, the cuts. And all that is to say also, how do we define rural? A lot of suburban and urban hospitals are also really struggling currently and would be subject to close. And so now you get into the pitting members and districts against each other, because some people’s hospitals might be saved and others might be left out in the cold. And so I just think it’s going to be messy going forward. 

Rovner: I spent a good part of the late ’80s and early ’90s pulling out of bills little tiny provisions that would get tucked in to reclassify hospitals as rural so they could qualify, because there are already a lot of programs that give more money to rural hospitals to keep them open. Sorry, Victoria, we should move on, but you wanted to say one more thing? 

Knight: Oh, yeah. No. I was just going to say, going back to the unpopularity of the bill based on polling, and I think that we’ll see at least Democrats — if Republicans get this done and they have the work requirements and the other cuts to Medicaid in the bill, cuts to ACA, no renewal of premium tax credits — I think Democrats will really try to make the midterms about this, right? We already are seeing them messaging about it really hardcore, and obviously the Democrats are trying to find their way right now post-[Joe] Biden, post-[Kamala] Harris. So I think they’ll at least try to make this bill the thing and see if it’s unpopular with the general public, what Republicans did with health care on this. So we’ll see if that works for them, but I think they’re going to try. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think you’re right. Well, speaking of Medicare, we got the annual trustees report this week, and the insolvency date for Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund has moved up to 2033. That’s three years sooner than predicted last year. Yet there’s nothing in the budget reconciliation bill that would address that, not even a potentially bipartisan effort to go after upcoding in Medicare Advantage that we thought the Finance Committee might do, that would save money for Medicare that insurers are basically overcharging the government for. What happened to the idea of going after Medicare Advantage overpayments? 

Knight: My general vibe I got from asking senators was that Trump said, We’re not touching Medicare in this bill. He did not want that to happen. And I think, again, maybe potentially thinking about the midterms, just the messaging on that, touching Medicare, it kind of always goes where they don’t want to touch Medicare, because it’s older people, but Medicaid is OK, even though it’s poor people. 

Rovner: And older people. 

Ollstein: And they are touching Medicare in the bill anyway. 

Rovner: Thank you. I know. I think that’s the part that makes my head swim. It’s like, really? There are several things that actually touch Medicare in this bill, but the thing that they could probably save a good chunk of money on and that both parties agree on is the thing that they’re not doing. 

Knight: Exactly. It was very bipartisan. 

Rovner: Yes. It was very bipartisan, and it’s not there. All right. Moving on. Elon Musk has gone back to watching his SpaceX rockets blow up on the launchpad, which feels like a fitting metaphor for what’s been left behind at the Department of Health and Human Services following some of the DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] cuts. On Monday, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that billions of dollars in cuts to about 800 NIH [National Institutes of Health] research grants due to DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] were, quote, “arbitrary and capricious” and wrote, quote, “I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this.” And mind you, this was a judge who was appointed by [President] Ronald Reagan. So what happens now? It’s been months since these grants were terminated, and even though the judge has ordered the funding restored, this obviously isn’t the last word, and one would expect the administration’s going to appeal, right? So these people are just supposed to hang out and wait to see if their research gets to continue? 

Raman: This has been a big thing that has come up in all of the appropriations hearings we’ve had so far this year, that even though the gist of that is to look forward at the next year’s appropriations, it’s been a big topic of just: There is funding that we as Congress have already appropriated for this. Why isn’t it getting distributed? So I think that will definitely be something that they push back up on the next ones of those. Some of the different senators have said that they’ve been looking into it and how it’s been affecting their districts. So I would say that. But I think the White House in response to that called the decision political, which I thought was interesting given, like you said, it was a Reagan appointee that said this. So it’ll definitely be something that I think will be appealed and be a major issue. 

Ollstein: Yeah, and the folks I’ve talked to who’ve been impacted by this stress that you can’t flip funding on and off like a switch and expect research to continue just fine. Once things are halted, they’re halted. And in a lot of cases, it is irreversible. Samples are thrown out. People are laid off. Labs are shut down. Even if there’s a ruling that reverses the policy, that often comes too late to make a difference. And at the same time, people are not waiting around to see how this back-and-forth plays out. People are getting actively recruited by universities and other countries saying: Hey, we’re not going to defund you suddenly. Come here. And they’re moving to the private sector. And so I think this is really going to have a long impact no matter what happens, a long tail. 

Rovner: And yet we got another reminder this week of the major advances that federally funded research can produce, with the FDA approval of a twice-a-year shot that can basically prevent HIV infection. Will this be able to make up maybe for the huge cuts to HIV programs that this administration is making? 

Raman: It’s only one drug, and we have to see what the price is, what cost— 

Rovner: So far the price is huge. I think I saw it was going to be like $14,000 a shot. 

Raman: Which means that something like PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] is still going to be a lot more affordable for different groups, for states, for relief efforts. So I think that it’s a good step on the research front, but until the price comes down, the other tools in the toolbox are going to be a lot more feasible to do. 

Rovner: Yeah. So much for President Trump’s goal to end HIV. So very first-term. All right. Well, turning to abortion, it’s been almost exactly three years since the Supreme Court overturned the nationwide right to abortion in the Dobbs case. In that time we’ve seen abortion outlawed in nearly half the states but abortions overall rise due to the expanded use of abortion medication. We’ve seen doctors leaving states with bans, for fear of not being able to provide needed care for patients with pregnancy complications. And we’ve seen graduating medical students avoiding taking residencies in those states for the same reason. Alice, what’s the next front in the battle over abortion in the U.S.? 

Ollstein: It’s been one of the main fronts, even before Dobbs, but it’s just all about the pills right now. That’s really where all of the attention is. So whether that’s efforts ongoing in the courts back before our friend Kacsmaryk to try to challenge the FDA’s policies around the pills and impose restrictions nationwide, there’s efforts at the state level. There’s agitation for Congress to do something, although I think that’s the least likely option. I think it’s much more likely that it’s going to come from agency regulation or from the courts or from states. So I would put Congress last on the list of actors here. But I think that’s really it. And I think we’re also seeing the same pattern that we see in gender-affirming care battles, where there’s a lot of focus on what minors can access, what children can access, and that then expands to be a policy targeting people of any age. 

So I think it’s going to be a factor. One thing I think is going to slow down significantly are these ballot initiatives in the states. There’s only a tiny handful of states left that haven’t done it yet and have the ability to do it. A lot of states, it’s not even an option. So I would look at Idaho for next year, and Nevada. But I don’t think you’re going to see the same storm of them that you have seen the last few years. And part of that is, like I said, there’s just fewer left that have the ability. But also some people have soured on that as a tactic and feel that they haven’t gotten the bang for the buck, because those campaigns are extremely expensive, extremely resource-intensive. And there’s been frustration that, in Missouri, for instance, it’s sort of been — the will of the people has sort of been overturned by the state government, and that’s being attempted in other states as well. And so it has seemed to people like a very expensive and not reliable protection, although I’m not sure in some states what the other option would even be. 

Rovner: Of course the one thing that is happening on Capitol Hill is that the House Judiciary Committee last week voted to repeal the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE. Now this law doesn’t just protect abortion clinics but also anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers. This feels like maybe not the best timing for this sort of thing, especially in light of the shootings of lawmakers in Minnesota last weekend, where the shooter reportedly had in his car a list of abortion providers and abortion rights supporters. Might that slow down this FACE repeal effort? 

Ollstein: I think it already was going to be an uphill battle in the Senate and even maybe passing the full House, because even some conservatives say, Well, I don’t know if we should get rid of the FACE Act, because the FACE Act also applies to conservative crisis pregnancy centers. And lest we forget, only a few short weeks ago, an IVF [in vitro fertilization] clinic was bombed, and it would’ve applied in that situation, too. And so some conservatives are divided on whether or not to get rid of the FACE Act. And so I don’t know where it is going forward, but I think these recent instances of violence certainly are not helping the efforts, and the Trump administration has already said they’re not really going to enforce FACE against people who protest outside of abortion clinics. And so that takes some of the heat off of the conservatives who want to get rid of it. Of course, they say it shouldn’t be left for a future administration to enforce, as the Biden administration did. 

Raman: It also applies to churches, which I think if you are deeply religious that could also be a point of contention for you. But, yeah, I think just also with so much else going on and the fact that they’ve kind of slowed down on taking some of these things up for the whole chamber to vote on outside of in January, I don’t really see it coming up in the immediate future for a vote. 

Rovner: Well, at the same time, there are efforts in the other direction, although the progress on that front seems to be happening in other countries. The British Parliament this week voted to decriminalize basically all abortions in England and Wales, changing an 1861 law. And here on this side of the Atlantic, four states are petitioning the FDA to lift the remaining restrictions on the abortion pill, mifepristone, even as — Alice, as you mentioned — abortion foes argue for its approval to be revoked. You said that the abortion rights groups are shying away from these ballot measures even if they could do it. What is going to be their focus? 

Ollstein: Yeah, and I wouldn’t say they’re shying away from it. I’ve just heard a more divided view as a tactic and whether it’s worth it or not. But I do think that these court battles are really going to be where a lot is decided. That’s how we got to where we are now in the first place. And so the effort to get rid of the remaining restrictions on the abortion pill, the sort of back-and-forth tug here, that’s also been going on for years and years, and so I think we’re going to see that continue as well. And I think there’s also going to be, parallel to that, a sort of PR war. And I think we saw that recently with anti-abortion groups putting out their own not-peer-reviewed research to sort of bolster their argument that abortion pills are dangerous. And so I think you’re going to see more things like that attempting to — as one effort goes on in court, another effort in parallel in the court of public opinion to make people view abortion pills as something to fear and to want to restrict. 

Rovner: All right. Well, finally this week, a couple of stories that just kind of jumped out at me. First, the AP [Associated Press] is reporting that Medicaid officials, over the objections of some at the agency, have turned over to the Department of Homeland Security personal data on millions of Medicaid beneficiaries, including those in states that allow noncitizens to enroll even if they’re not eligible for federal matching funds, so states that use their own money to provide insurance to these people. That of course raises the prospect of DHS using that information to track down and deport said individuals. But on a broader level, one of the reasons Medicaid has been expanded for emergencies and in some cases for noncitizens is because those people live here and they get sick. And not only should they be able to get medical care because, you know, humanity, but also because they may get communicable diseases that they can spread to their citizen neighbors and co-workers. Is this sort of the classic case of cutting off your nose despite your face? 

Ollstein: I think we saw very clearly during covid and during mpox and measles, yes. What impacts one part of the population impacts the whole population, and we’re already seeing that these immigration crackdowns are deterring people, even people who are legally eligible for benefits and services staying away from that. We saw that during Trump’s first term with the public charge rule that led to people disenrolling in health programs and avoiding services. And that effect continued. There’s research out of UCLA showing that effect continued even after the Biden administration got rid of the policy. And so fear and the chilling effect can really linger and have an impact and deter people who are citizens, are legal immigrants, from using that as well. It’s a widespread impact. 

Rovner: And of course, now we see the Trump administration revoking the status of people who came here legally and basically declaring them illegal after the fact. Some of this chilling effect is reasonable for people to assume. Like the research being cut off, even if these things are ultimately reversed, there’s a lot of — depends whether you consider it damage or not — but a lot of the stuff is going to be hard. You’re not going to be able to just resume, pick up from where you were. 

Ollstein: And one concern I’ve been hearing particularly is around management of bird flu, since a lot of legal and undocumented workers work in agriculture and have a higher likelihood of being exposed. And so if they’re deterred from seeking testing, seeking treatment, that could really be dangerous for the whole population. 

Rovner: Yeah. It is all about health. It is always all about health. All right. Well, the last story this week is from The Guardian, and it’s called “VA Hospitals Remove Politics and Marital Status From Guidelines Protecting Patients From Discrimination.” And it’s yet another example of how purging DEI language can at least theoretically get you in trouble. It’s not clear if VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] personnel can now actually discriminate against people because of their political party or because they’re married or not married. The administration says other safeguards are still in place, but it is another example of how sweeping changes can shake people’s confidence in government programs. I imagine the idea here is to make people worried about discrimination and therefore less likely to seek care, right? 

Raman: It’s also just so unusual. I have not heard of anything like this before in anything that we’ve been reporting, where your political party is pulled into this. It just seems so out of the realm of what a provider would need to know about you to give you care. And then I could see the chilling effect in the same way, where if someone might want to be active on some issue or share their views, they might be more reluctant to do so, because they know they have to get care. And if that could affect their ability to do so, if they would have to travel farther to a different VA hospital, even if they aren’t actually denying people because of this, that chilling effect is going to be something to watch. 

Rovner: And this is, these are not sort of theoretical things. There was a case some years ago about a doctor, I think he was in Kentucky, who wouldn’t prescribe birth control to women who weren’t married. So there was reason for having these protections in there, even though they are not part of federal anti-discrimination law, which is what the Trump administration said. Why are these things in there? They’re not required, so we’re going to take them out. That’s basically what this fight is over. But it’s sort of an — I’m sure there are other places where this is happening. We just haven’t seen it yet. 

All right, well, that is this week’s news. Now 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. Victoria, why don’t you go first this week? 

Knight: Sure thing. My extra credit, it’s from The New York Times. The title is, “They Asked an A.I. Chatbot Questions. The Answers Sent Them Spiraling,” by Kashmir Hill, who covers technology at The Times. I had seen screenshots of this article being shared on X a bunch last week, and I was like, “I need to read this.” 

Basically it shows that different people who, they may be going through something, they may have a lot of stress, or they may already have a mental health condition, and they start messaging ChatGPT different things, then ChatGPT can kind of feed into their own delusions and their own misaligned thinking. That’s because that’s kind of how ChatGPT is built. It’s built to be, like, they call it in the story, like a sycophant. Is that how you say it? So it kind of is supposed to react positively to what you’re saying and kind of reinforce what you’re saying. And so if you’re feeding it delusions, it will feed delusions back. And so it was really scary because real-life people were impacted by this. There was one individual who thought he was talking to — had found an entity inside of ChatGPT named Juliet, and then he thought that OpenAI killed her. And so then he ended up basically being killed by police that came to his house. It was just — yeah, there was a lot of real-life effects from talking to ChatGPT and having your own delusions reinforced. So, and so it was just an effect of ChatGPT on real-life people that I don’t know if we’ve seen illustrated in a news story yet. And so it was very illuminating, yeah. 

Rovner: Yeah. Not scary much. Sandhya. 

Raman: My extra credit was “Ambulance Companies Collect Millions by Seizing Wages, State Tax Refunds.” It’s by Michelle Crouch for The Charlotte Ledger [and North Carolina Health News]. It’s a story about how some different ambulance patients from North Carolina are finding out that their income gets tapped for debt collection by the state’s EMS agencies, which are government entities, mostly. So the state can take through the EMS up to 10% of your monthly paycheck, or pull from your bank account higher than that, or pull from your tax refunds or lottery winnings. And it’s taking some people a little bit by surprise after they’ve tried to pay off this care and having to face this, but something that the agencies are also saying is necessary to prevent insurers from underpaying them. 

Rovner: Oh, sigh. 

Raman: Yeah. 

Rovner: The endless stream of really good stories on this subject. Alice. 

Ollstein: So I chose this piece in Wired by Emily Mullin called “What Tear Gas and Rubber Bullets Do to the Human Body,” thinking a lot about my hometown of Los Angeles, which is under heavy ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] enforcement and National Guard and Marines and who knows who else. So this article is talking about the health impacts of so-called less-lethal police tactics like rubber bullets, like tear gas. And it is about how not only are they sometimes actually lethal — they can kill people and have — but also they have a lot of lingering impacts, especially tear gas. It can exacerbate respiratory problems and even cause brain damage. And so it’s being used very widely and, in some people’s view, indiscriminately right now. And there should be more attention on this, as it can impact completely innocent bystanders and press and who knows who else. 

Rovner: Yeah. There’s a long distance between nonlethal and harmless, which I think this story illustrates very well. My extra credit this week is also from The New York Times. It’s called “The Bureaucrat and the Billionaire: Inside DOGE’s Chaotic Takeover of Social Security,” by Alexandra Berzon, Nicholas Nehamas, and Tara Siegel Bernard. It’s about how the White House basically forced Social Security officials to peddle a false narrative that said 40% of calls to the agency’s customer service lines were from scammers — they were not — how DOGE misinterpreted Social Security data and gave a 21-year-old intern access to basically everyone’s personal Social Security information, and how the administration shut down some Social Security offices to punish lawmakers who criticized the president. This is stuff we pretty much knew was happening at the time, and not just in Social Security. But The New York Times now has the receipts. It’s definitely worth reading. 

OK. That is this week’s show. Thanks as always to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. 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 guys hanging these days? Sandhya. 

Raman: @SandhyaWrites on X and the same on Bluesky. 

Rovner: Alice. 

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

Rovner: Victoria. 

Knight: I am @victoriaregisk 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 report found that 96% of the Part D plans and 88% of the Medicare Advantage drug plans agreed to cover at least one of the 10 available copycat drugs on their 2025 formularies. And some did not cover the brand-name version. This was a big jump in coverage from 2024, when only 64% of the Part D plans and 52% of the Medicare Advantage drug plans covered at least one biosimilar version of Humira.

Overall, 99% of enrollees in Part D Plans and 90% in Medicare Advantage drug plans had access to at least one Humira biosimilar in 2025. However, some plans are still restricting access to the biosimilars this year, which precludes usage. Specifically, 10% of Medicare Advantage drug plans and 1% of Part D plans cover only the brand-name medication.

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.

After narrowly passing a budget resolution this spring foreshadowing major Medicaid cuts, Republicans in Congress are having trouble agreeing on specific ways to save billions of dollars from a pool of funding that pays for the program without cutting benefits on which millions of Americans rely. Moderates resist changes they say would harm their constituents, while fiscal conservatives say they won’t vote for smaller cuts than those called for in the budget resolution. The fate of President Donald Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill” containing renewed tax cuts and boosted immigration enforcement could hang on a Medicaid deal.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration surprised those on both sides of the abortion debate by agreeing with the Biden administration that a Texas case challenging the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone should be dropped. It’s clear the administration’s request is purely technical, though, and has no bearing on whether officials plan to protect the abortion pill’s availability.

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

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg News

@annaedney

@annaedney.bsky.social

Read Anna's stories.

Maya Goldman
Axios

@mayagoldman_

@maya-goldman.bsky.social

Read Maya's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

@SandhyaWrites.bsky.social

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Congressional Republicans are making halting progress on negotiations over government spending cuts. As hard-line House conservatives push for deeper cuts to the Medicaid program, their GOP colleagues representing districts that heavily depend on Medicaid coverage are pushing back. House Republican leaders are eying a Memorial Day deadline, and key committees are scheduled to review the legislation next week — but first, Republicans need to agree on what that legislation says.
• Trump withdrew his nomination of Janette Nesheiwat for U.S. surgeon general amid accusations she misrepresented her academic credentials and criticism from the far right. In her place, he nominated Casey Means, a physician who is an ally of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s and a prominent advocate of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement.
• The pharmaceutical industry is on alert as Trump prepares to sign an executive order directing agencies to look into “most-favored-nation” pricing, a policy that would set U.S. drug prices to the lowest level paid by similar countries. The president explored that policy during his first administration, and the drug industry sued to stop it. Drugmakers are already on edge over Trump’s plan to impose tariffs on drugs and their ingredients.
• And Kennedy is scheduled to appear before the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee next week. The hearing would be the first time the secretary of Health and Human Services has appeared before the HELP Committee since his confirmation hearings — and all eyes are on the committee’s GOP chairman, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a physician who expressed deep concerns at the time, including about Kennedy’s stances on vaccines.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Lauren Sausser, who co-reported and co-wrote the latest KFF Health News’ “Bill of the Month” installment, about an unexpected bill for what seemed like preventive care. If you have an outrageous, baffling, or infuriating medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: NPR’s “Fired, Rehired, and Fired Again: Some Federal Workers Find They’re Suddenly Uninsured,” by Andrea Hsu. 

Maya Goldman: Stat’s “Europe Unveils $565 Million Package To Retain Scientists, and Attract New Ones,” by Andrew Joseph. 

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “A Former TV Writer Found a Health-Care Loophole That Threatens To Blow Up Obamacare,” by Zachary R. Mider and Zeke Faux. 

Sandhya Raman: The Louisiana Illuminator’s “In the Deep South, Health Care Fights Echo Civil Rights Battles,” by Anna Claire Vollers. 

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• ProPublica’s series “Life of the Mother: How Abortion Bans Lead to Preventable Deaths,” by Kavitha Surana, Lizzie Presser, Cassandra Jaramillo, and Stacy Kranitz, and the winner of the 2025 Pulitzer Prize for public service journalism.
• The New York Times’ “G.O.P. Targets a Medicaid Loophole Used by 49 States To Grab Federal Money,” by Margot Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff.
• KFF Health News’ “Seeking Spending Cuts, GOP Lawmakers Target a Tax Hospitals Love to Pay,” by Phil Galewitz.
• Axios’ “Out-of-Pocket Drug Spending Hit $98B in 2024: Report,” by Maya Goldman.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Cutting Medicaid Is Hard — Even for the GOP

[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, May 8, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Today we are joined via a videoconference by Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Maya Goldman of Axios News. 

Maya Goldman: Great to be here. 

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Sandhya Raman: Good morning, everyone. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my “Bill of the Month” interview with my KFF Health News colleague Lauren Sausser. This month’s patient got preventive care they assumed would be covered by their Affordable Care Act health plan, except it wasn’t. But first, this week’s news. 

We’re going to start on Capitol Hill, where Sandhya is coming directly from, where regular listeners to this podcast will be not one bit surprised that Republicans working on President [Donald] Trump’s one “big, beautiful” budget reconciliation bill are at an impasse over how and how deeply to cut the Medicaid program. Originally, the House Energy and Commerce Committee was supposed to mark up its portion of the bill this week, but that turned out to be too optimistic. Now they’re shooting for next week, apparently Tuesday or so, they’re saying, and apparently that Memorial Day goal to finish the bill is shifting to maybe the Fourth of July? But given what’s leaking out of the closed Republican meetings on this, even that might be too soon. Where are we with these Medicaid negotiations? 

Raman: I would say a lot has been happening, but also a lot has not been happening. I think that anytime we’ve gotten any little progress on knowing what exactly is at the top of the list, it gets walked back. So earlier this week we had a meeting with a lot of the moderates in Speaker [Mike] Johnson’s office and trying to get them on board with some of the things that they were hesitant about, and following the meeting, Speaker Johnson had said that two of the things that have been a little bit more contentious — changing the federal match for the expansion population and instituting per capita caps for states — were off the table. But the way that he phrased it is kind of interesting in that he said stay tuned and that it possibly could change. 

And so then yesterday when we were hearing from the Energy and Commerce Committee, it seemed like these things are still on the table. And then Speaker Johnson has kind of gone back on that and said, I said it was likely. So every time we kind of have any sort of change, it’s really unclear if these things are in the mix, outside the mix. When we pulled them off the table, we had a lot of the hard-line conservatives get really upset about this because it’s not enough savings. So I think any way that you push it with such narrow margins, it’s been difficult to make any progress, even though they’ve been having a lot of meetings this week. 

Rovner: One of the things that surprised me was apparently the Senate Republicans are weighing in. The Senate Republicans who aren’t even set to make Medicaid cuts under their version of the budget resolution are saying that the House needs to go further. Where did that come from? 

Raman: It’s just been a difficult process to get anything across. I mean, in the House side, a lot of it has been, I think, election-driven. You see the people that are not willing to make as many concessions are in competitive districts. The people that want to go a little bit more extreme on what they’re thinking are in much more safe districts. And then in the Senate, I think there’s a lot more at play just because they have longer terms, they have more to work with. So some of the pushback has been from people that it would directly affect their states or if the governors have weighed in. But I think that there are so many things that they do want to get done, since there is much stronger agreement on some of the immigration stuff and the taxes that they want to find the savings somewhere. If they don’t find it, then the whole thing is moot. 

Rovner: So meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office at the request of Democrats is out with estimates of what some of these Medicaid options would mean for coverage, and it gives lie to some of these Republican claims that they can cut nearly a trillion dollars from Medicaid without touching benefits, right? I mean all of these — and Maya, your nodding. 

Goldman: Yeah. 

Rovner: All of these things would come with coverage losses. 

Goldman: Yeah, I think it’s important to think about things like work requirements, which has gotten a lot of support from moderate Republicans. The only way that that produces savings is if people come off Medicaid as a result. Work requirements in and of themselves are not saving any money. So I know advocates are very concerned about any level of cuts. I talked to somebody from a nursing home association who said: We can’t pick and choose. We’re not in a position to pick and choose which are better or worse, because at this point, everything on the table is bad for us. So I think people are definitely waiting with bated breath there. 

Rovner: Yeah, I’ve heard a lot of Republicans over the last week or so with the talking points. If we’re just going after fraud and abuse then we’re not going to cut anybody’s benefits. And it’s like — um, good luck with that. 

Goldman: And President Trump has said that as well. 

Rovner: That’s right. Well, one place Congress could recoup a lot of money from Medicaid is by cracking down on provider taxes, which 49 of the 50 states use to plump up their federal Medicaid match, if you will. Basically the state levies a tax on hospitals or nursing homes or some other group of providers, claims that money as their state share to draw down additional federal matching Medicaid funds, then returns it to the providers in the form of increased reimbursement while pocketing the difference. You can call it money laundering as some do, or creative financing as others do, or just another way to provide health care to low-income people. 

But one thing it definitely is, at least right now, is legal. Congress has occasionally tried to crack down on it since the late 1980s. I have spent way more time covering this fight than I wish I had, but the combination of state and health provider pushback has always prevented it from being eliminated entirely. If you want a really good backgrounder, I point you to the excellent piece in The New York Times this week by our podcast pals Margot Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff. What are you guys hearing about provider taxes and other forms of state contributions and their future in all of this? Is this where they’re finally going to look to get a pot of money? 

Raman: It’s still in the mix. The tricky thing is how narrow the margins are, and when you have certain moderates having a hard line saying, I don’t want to cut more than $500 billion or $600 billion, or something like that. And then you have others that don’t want to dip below the $880 billion set for the Energy and Commerce Committee. And then there are others that have said it’s not about a specific number, it’s what is being cut. So I think once we have some more numbers for some of the other things, it’ll provide a better idea of what else can fit in. Because right now for work requirements, we’re going based on some older CBO [Congressional Budget Office] numbers. We have the CBO numbers that the Democrats asked for, but it doesn’t include everything. And piecing that together is the puzzle, will illuminate some of that, if there are things that people are a little bit more on board with. But it’s still kind of soon to figure out if we’re not going to see draft text until early next week. 

Goldman: I think the tricky thing with provider taxes is that it’s so baked into the way that Medicaid functions in each state. And I think I totally co-sign on the New York Times article. It was a really helpful explanation of all of this, and I would bet that you’ll see a lot of pushback from state governments, including Republicans, on a proposal that makes severe changes to that. 

Rovner: Someday, but not today, I will tell the story of the 1991 fight over this in which there was basically a bizarre dealmaking with individual senators to keep this legal. That was a year when the Democrats were trying to get rid of it. So it’s a bipartisan thing. All right, well, moving on. 

It wouldn’t be a Thursday morning if we didn’t have breaking federal health personnel news. Today was supposed to be the confirmation hearing for surgeon general nominee and Fox News contributor Janette Nesheiwat. But now her nomination has been pulled over some questions about whether she was misrepresenting her medical education credentials, and she’s already been replaced with the nomination of Casey Means, the sister of top [Health and Human Services] Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] aide Calley Means, who are both leaders in the MAHA [“Make America Healthy Again”] movement. This feels like a lot of science deniers moving in at one time. Or is it just me? 

Edney: Yeah, I think that the Meanses have been in this circle, names floated for various things at various times, and this was a place where Casey Means fit in. And certainly she espouses a lot of the views on, like, functional medicine and things that this administration, at least RFK Jr., seems to also subscribe to. But the one thing I’m not as clear on her is where she stands with vaccines, because obviously Nesheiwat had fudged on her school a little bit, and— 

Rovner: Yeah, I think she did her residency at the University of Arkansas— 

Edney: That’s where. 

Rovner: —and she implied that she’d graduated from the University of Arkansas medical school when in fact she graduated from an accredited Caribbean medical school, which lots of doctors go to. It’s not a sin— 

Edney: Right. 

Rovner: —and it’s a perfectly, as I say, accredited medical school. That was basically — but she did fudge it on her resume. 

Edney: Yeah. 

Rovner: So apparently that was one of the things that got her pulled. 

Edney: Right. And the other, kind of, that we’ve seen in recent days, again, is Laura Loomer coming out against her because she thinks she’s not anti-vaccine enough. So what the question I think to maybe be looking into today and after is: Is Casey Means anti-vaccine enough for them? I don’t know exactly the answer to that and whether she’ll make it through as well. 

Rovner: Well, we also learned this week that Vinay Prasad, a controversial figure in the covid movement and even before that, has been named to head the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] Center for Biologics and Evaluation Research, making him the nation’s lead vaccine regulator, among other things. Now he does have research bona fides but is a known skeptic of things like accelerated approval of new drugs, and apparently the biotech industry, less than thrilled with this pick, Anna? 

Edney: Yeah, they are quite afraid of this pick. You could see it in the stocks for a lot of vaccine companies, for some other companies particularly. He was quite vocal and quite against the covid vaccines during covid and even compared them to the Nazi regime. So we know that there could be a lot of trouble where, already, you know, FDA has said that they’re going to require placebo-controlled trials for new vaccines and imply that any update to a covid vaccine makes it a new vaccine. So this just spells more trouble for getting vaccines to market and quickly to people. He also—you mentioned accelerated approval. This is a way that the FDA uses to try to get promising medicines to people faster. There are issues with it, and people have written about the fact that they rely on what are called surrogate endpoints. So not Did you live longer? but Did your tumor shrink? 

And you would think that that would make you live longer, but it actually turns out a lot of times it doesn’t. So you maybe went through a very strong medication and felt more terrible than you might have and didn’t extend your life. So there’s a lot of that discussion, and so that. There are other drugs. Like this Sarepta drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a big one that Vinay Prasad has come out against, saying that should have never been approved, because it was using these kind of surrogate endpoints. So I think biotech’s pretty — thinking they’re going to have a lot tougher road ahead to bring stuff to market. 

Rovner: And I should point out that over the very long term, this has been the continuing struggle at FDA. It’s like, do you protect the public but make people wait longer for drugs or do you get the drugs out and make sure that people who have no other treatments available have something available? And it’s been a constant push and pull. It’s not really been partisan. Sometimes you get one side pushing and the other side pushing back. It’s really nothing new. It’s just the sort of latest iteration of this. 

Edney: Right. Yeah. This is the pendulum swing, back to the Maybe we need to be slowing it down side. It’s also interesting because there are other discussions from RFK Jr. that, like, We need to be speeding up approvals and Trump wants to speed up approvals. So I don’t know where any of this will actually come down when the rubber meets the road, I guess. 

Rovner: Sandhya and Maya, I see you both nodding. Do you want to add something? 

Raman: I think this was kind of a theme that I also heard this week in the — we had the Senate Finance hearing for some of the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] nominees, and Jim O’Neill, who’s one of the nominees, that was something that was brought up by Finance ranking member Ron Wyden, that some of his past remarks when he was originally considered to be on the short list for FDA commissioner last Trump administration is that he basically said as long as it’s safe, it should go ahead regardless of efficacy. So those comments were kind of brought back again, and he’s in another hearing now, so that might come up as an issue in HELP [the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions] today. 

Rovner: And he’s the nominee for deputy secretary, right? Have to make sure I keep all these things straight. Maya, you wanting to add something? 

Goldman: Yeah, I was just going to say, I think there is a divide between these two philosophies on pharmaceuticals, and my sense is that the selection of Prasad is kind of showing that the anti-accelerated-approval side is winning out. But I think Anna is correct that we still don’t know where it’s going to land. 

Rovner: Yes, and I will point out that accelerated approval first started during AIDS when there was no treatments and basically people were storming the — literally physically storming — the FDA, demanding access to AIDS drugs, which they did finally get. But that’s where accelerated approval came from. This is not a new fight, and it will continue. 

Turning to abortion, the Trump administration surprised a lot of people this week when it continued the Biden administration’s position asking for that case in Texas challenging the abortion pill to be dropped. For those who’ve forgotten, this was a case originally filed by a bunch of Texas medical providers demanding the judge overrule the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone in the year 2000. The Supreme Court ruled the original plaintiff lacked standing to sue, but in the meantime, three states —Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas — have taken their place as plaintiffs. But now the Trump administration points out that those states have no business suing in the Northern District of Texas, which kind of seems true on its face. But we should not mistake this to think that the Trump administration now supports the current approval status of the abortion bill. Right, Sandhya? 

Raman: Yeah, I think you’re exactly right. It doesn’t surprise me. If they had allowed these three states, none of which are Texas — they shouldn’t have standing. And if they did allow them to, that would open a whole new can of worms for so many other cases where the other side on so many issues could cherry-pick in the same way. And so I think, I assume, that this will come up in future cases for them and they will continue with the positions they’ve had before. But this was probably in their best interest not to in this specific one. 

Rovner: Yeah. There are also those who point out that this could be a way of the administration protecting itself. If it wants to roll back or reimpose restrictions on the abortion pill, it would help prevent blue states from suing to stop that. So it serves a double purpose here, right? 

Raman: Yeah. I couldn’t see them doing it another way. And even if you go through the ruling, the language they use, it’s very careful. It’s not dipping into talking fully about abortion. It’s going purely on standing. Yeah. 

Rovner: There’s nothing that says, We think the abortion pill is fine the way it is. It clearly does not say that, although they did get the headlines — and I’m sure the president wanted — that makes it look like they’re towing this middle ground on abortion, which they may be but not necessarily in this case. 

Well, before we move off of reproductive health, a shoutout here to the incredible work of ProPublica, which was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for public service this week for its stories on women who died due to abortion bans that prevented them from getting care for their pregnancy complications. Regular listeners of the podcast will remember that we talked about these stories as they came out last year, but I will post another link to them in the show notes today. 

OK, moving on. There’s even more drug price news this week, starting with the return of, quote, “most favored nation” drug pricing. Anna, remind us what this is and why it’s controversial. 

Edney: Yeah. So the idea of most favored nation, this is something President Trump has brought up before in his first administration, but it creates a basket, essentially, of different prices that nations pay. And we’re going to base ours on the lowest price that is paid for— 

Rovner: We’re importing other countries’— 

Edney: —prices. 

Rovner: —price limits. 

Edney: Yeah. Essentially, yes. We can’t import their drugs, but we can import their prices. And so the goal is to just basically piggyback off of whoever is paying the lowest price and to base ours off of that. And clearly the drug industry does not like this and, I think, has faced a number of kind of hits this week where things are looming that could really come after them. So Politico broke that news that Trump is going to sign or expected to sign an executive order that will direct his agencies to look into this most-favored-nation effort. And it feels very much like 2.0, like we were here before. And it didn’t exactly work out, obviously. 

Rovner: They sued, didn’t they? The drug industry sued, as I recall. 

Edney: Yeah, I think you’re right. Yes. 

Goldman: If I’m remembering— 

Rovner: But I think they won. 

Goldman: If I’m remembering correctly, it was an Administrative Procedure Act lawsuit though, right? So— 

Rovner: It was. Yes. It was about a regulation. Yes. 

Goldman: —who knows what would happen if they go through a different procedure this time. 

Rovner: So the other thing, obviously, that the drug industry is freaked out about right now are tariffs, which have been on again, off again, on again, off again. Where are we with tariffs on — and it’s not just tariffs on drugs being imported. It’s tariffs on drug ingredients being imported, right? 

Edney: Yeah. And that’s a particularly rough one because many ingredients are imported, and then some of the drugs are then finished here, just like a car. All the pieces are brought in and then put together in one place. And so this is something the Trump administration has began the process of investigating. And PhRMA [Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America], the trade group for the drug industry, has come out officially, as you would expect, against the tariffs, saying that: This will reduce our ability to do R&D. It will raise the price of drugs that Americans pay, because we’re just going to pass this on to everyone. And so we’re still in this waiting zone of seeing when or exactly how much and all of that for the tariffs for pharma. 

Rovner: And yet Americans are paying — already paying — more than they ever have. Maya, you have a story just about that. Tell us. 

Goldman: Yeah, there was a really interesting report from an analytics data firm that showed the price that Americans are paying for prescriptions is continuing to climb. Also, the number of prescriptions that Americans are taking is continuing to climb. It certainly will be interesting to see if this administration can be any more successful. That report, I don’t think this made it into the article that I ended up writing, but it did show that the cost of insulin is down. And that’s something that has been a federal policy intervention. We haven’t seen a lot of the effects yet of the Medicare drug price negotiations, but I think there are signs that that could lower the prices that people are paying. So I think it’s interesting to just see the evolution of all of this. It’s very much in flux. 

Rovner: A continuing effort. Well, we are now well into the second hundred days of Trump 2.0, and we’re still learning about the cuts to health and health-related programs the administration is making. Just in this week’s rundown are stories about hundreds more people being laid off at the National Cancer Institute, a stop-work order at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases research lab at Fort Detrick, Maryland, that studies Ebola and other deadly infectious diseases, and the layoff of most of the remaining staff at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 

A reminder that this is all separate from the discretionary-spending budget request that the administration sent up to lawmakers last week. That document calls for a 26% cut in non-mandatory funding at HHS, meaning just about everything other than Medicare and Medicaid. And it includes a proposed $18 billion cut to the NIH [National Institutes of Health] and elimination of the $4 billion Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps millions of low-income Americans pay their heating and air conditioning bills. Now, this is normally the part of the federal budget that’s deemed dead on arrival. The president sends up his budget request, and Congress says, Yeah, we’re not doing that. But this at least does give us an idea of what direction the administration wants to take at HHS, right? What’s the likelihood of Congress endorsing any of these really huge, deep cuts? 

Raman: From both sides— 

Rovner: Go ahead, Sandhya. 

Raman: It’s not going to happen, and they need 60 votes in the Senate to pass the appropriations bills. I think that when we’re looking in the House in particular, there are a lot of things in what we know from this so-called skinny budget document that they could take up and put in their bill for Labor, HHS, and Education. But I think the Senate’s going to be a different story, just because the Senate Appropriations chair is Susan Collins and she, as soon as this came out, had some pretty sharp words about the big cuts to NIH. They’ve had one in a series of two hearings on biomedical research. Concerned about some of these kinds of things. So I cannot necessarily see that sharp of a cut coming to fruition for NIH, but they might need to make some concessions on some other things. 

This is also just a not full document. It has some things and others. I didn’t see any to FDA in there at all. So that was a question mark, even though they had some more information in some of the documents that had leaked kind of earlier on a larger version of this budget request. So I think we’ll see more about how people are feeling next week when we start having Secretary Kennedy testify on some of these. But I would not expect most of this to make it into whatever appropriations law we get. 

Goldman: I was just going to say that. You take it seriously but not literally, is what I’ve been hearing from people. 

Edney: We don’t have a full picture of what has already been cut. So to go in and then endorse cutting some more, maybe a little bit too early for that, because even at this point they’re still bringing people back that they cut. They’re finding out, Oh, this is actually something that is really important and that we need, so to do even more doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense right now. 

Rovner: Yeah, that state of disarray is purposeful, I would guess, and doing a really good job at sort of clouding things up. 

Goldman: One note on the cuts. I talked to someone at HHS this week who said as they’re bringing back some of these specialized people, in order to maintain the legality of, what they see as the legality of, the RIF [reduction in force], they need to lay off additional people to keep that number consistent. So I think that is very much in flux still and interesting to watch. 

Rovner: Yeah, and I think that’s part of what we were seeing this week is that the groups that got spared are now getting cut because they’ve had to bring back other people. And as I point out, I guess, every week, pretty much all of this is illegal. And as it goes to courts, judges say, You can’t do this. So everything is in flux and will continue. 

All right, finally this week, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who as of now is scheduled to appear before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee next week to talk about the department’s proposed budget, is asking CDC [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] to develop new guidance for treating measles with drugs and vitamins. This comes a week after he ordered a change in vaccine policy you already mentioned, Anna, so that new vaccines would have to be tested against placebos rather than older versions of the vaccine. These are all exactly the kinds of things that Kennedy promised health committee chairman Bill Cassidy he wouldn’t do. And yet we’ve heard almost nothing from Cassidy about anything the secretary has said or done since he’s been in office. So what do we expect to happen when they come face-to-face with each other in front of the cameras next week, assuming that it happens? 

Edney: I’m very curious. I don’t know. Do I expect a senator to take a stand? I don’t necessarily, but this— 

Rovner: He hasn’t yet. 

Edney: Yeah, he hasn’t yet. But this is maybe about face-saving too for him. So I don’t know. 

Rovner: Face-saving for Kennedy or for Cassidy? 

Edney: For Cassidy, given he said: I’m going to keep an eye on him. We’re going to talk all the time, and he is not going to do this thing without my input. I’m not sure how Cassidy will approach that. I think it’ll be a really interesting hearing that we’ll all be watching. 

Rovner: Yes. And just little announcement, if it does happen, that we are going to do sort of a special Wednesday afternoon after the hearing with some of our KFF Health News colleagues. So we are looking forward to that hearing. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Lauren Sausser, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

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

Lauren Sausser: Thank you. Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So this month’s patient got preventive care, which the Affordable Care Act was supposed to incentivize by making it cost-free at the point of service — except it wasn’t. Tell us who the patient is and what kind of care they got. 

Sausser: Carmen Aiken is from Chicago. Carmen uses they/them pronouns. And Carmen made an appointment in the summer of 2023 for an annual checkup. This is just like a wellness check that you are very familiar with. You get your vaccines updated. You get your weight checked. You talk to your doctor about your physical activity and your family history. You might get some blood work done. Standard stuff. 

Rovner: And how big was the bill? 

Sausser: The bill ended up being more than $1,400 when it should, in Carmen’s mind, have been free. 

Rovner: Which is a lot. 

Sausser: A lot. 

Rovner: I assume that there was a complaint to the health plan and the health plan said, Nope, not covered. Why did they say that? 

Sausser: It turns out that alongside with some blood work that was preventive, Carmen also had some blood work done to monitor an ongoing prescription. Because that blood test is not considered a standard preventive service, the entire appointment was categorized as diagnostic and not preventive. So all of these services that would’ve been free to them, available at no cost, all of a sudden Carmen became responsible for. 

Rovner: So even if the care was diagnostic rather than strictly preventive — obviously debatable — that sounds like a lot of money for a vaccine and some blood test. Why was the bill so high? 

Sausser: Part of the reason the bill was so high was because Carmen’s blood work was sent to a hospital for processing, and hospitals, as you know, can charge a lot more for the same services. So under Carmen’s health plan, they were responsible for, I believe it was, 50% of the cost of services performed in an outpatient hospital setting. And that’s what that blood work fell under. So the charges were high. 

Rovner: So we’ve talked a lot on the podcast about this fight in Congress to create site-neutral payments. This is a case where that probably would’ve made a big difference. 

Sausser: Yeah, it would. And there’s discussion, there’s bipartisan support for it. The idea is that you should not have to pay more for the same services that are delivered at different places. But right now there’s no legislation to protect patients like Carmen from incurring higher charges. 

Rovner: So what eventually happened with this bill? 

Sausser: Carmen ended up paying it. They put it on a credit card. This was of course after they tried appealing it to their insurance company. Their insurance company decided that they agreed with the provider that these services were diagnostic, not preventive. And so, yeah, Carmen was losing sleep over this and decided ultimately that they were just going to pay it. 

Rovner: And at least it was a four-figure bill and not a five-figure bill. 

Sausser: Right. 

Rovner: What’s the takeaway here? I imagine it is not that you should skip needed preventive/diagnostic care. Some drugs, when you’re on them, they say that you should have blood work done periodically to make sure you’re not having side effects. 

Sausser: Right. You should not skip preventive services. And that’s the whole intent behind this in the ACA. It catches stuff early so that it becomes more treatable. I think you have to be really, really careful and specific when you’re making appointments, and about your intention for the appointment, so that you don’t incur charges like this. I think that you can also be really careful about where you get your blood work conducted. A lot of times you’ll see these signs in the doctor’s office like: We use this lab. If this isn’t in-network with you, you need to let us know. Because the charges that you can face really vary depending on where those labs are processed. So you can be really careful about that, too. 

Rovner: And adding to all of this, there’s the pending Supreme Court case that could change it, right? 

Sausser: Right. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments. It was in April. I think it was on the 21st. And it is a case that originated out in Texas. There is a group of Christian businesses that are challenging the mandate in the ACA that requires health insurers to cover a lot of these preventive services. So obviously we don’t have a decision in the case yet, but we’ll see. 

Rovner: We will, and we will cover it on the podcast. Lauren Sausser, thank you so much. 

Sausser: Thank you. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. Now 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. Maya, you were the first to choose this week, so why don’t you go first? 

Goldman: My extra credit is from Stat. It’s called “Europe Unveils $565 Million Package To Retain Scientists, and Attract New Ones,” by Andrew Joseph. And I just think it’s a really interesting evidence point to the United States’ losses, other countries’ gain. The U.S. has long been the pinnacle of research science, and people flock to this country to do research. And I think we’re already seeing a reversal of that as cuts to NIH funding and other scientific enterprises is reduced. 

Rovner: Yep. A lot of stories about this, too. Anna. 

Edney: So mine is from a couple of my colleagues that they did earlier this week. “A Former TV Writer Found a Health-Care Loophole That Threatens To Blow Up Obamacare.” And I thought it was really interesting because it had brought me back to these cheap, bare-bones plans that people were allowed to start selling that don’t meet any of the Obamacare requirements. And so this guy who used to, in the ’80s and ’90s, wrote for sitcoms — “Coach” or “Night Court,” if anyone goes to watch those on reruns. But he did a series of random things after that and has sort of now landed on selling these junk plans, but doing it in a really weird way that signs people up for a job that they don’t know they’re being signed up for. And I think it’s just, it’s an interesting read because we knew when these things were coming online that this was shady and people weren’t going to get the coverage they needed. And this takes it to an extra level. They’re still around, and they’re still ripping people off. 

Rovner: Or as I’d like to subhead this story: Creative people think of creative things. 

Edney: “Creative” is a nice word. 

Rovner: Sandhya. 

Raman: So my pick is “In the Deep South, Health Care Fights Echo Civil Rights Battles,” and it’s from Anna Claire Vollers at the Louisiana Illuminator. And her story looks at some of the ties between civil rights and health. So 2025 is the 70th anniversary of the bus boycott, the 60th anniversary of Selma-to-Montgomery marches, the Voting Rights Act. And it’s also the 60th anniversary of Medicaid. And she goes into, Medicaid isn’t something you usually consider a civil rights win, but health as a human right was part of the civil rights movement. And I think it’s an interesting piece. 

Rovner: It is an interesting piece, and we should point out Medicare was also a huge civil rights, important piece of law because it desegregated all the hospitals in the South. All right, my extra credit this week is a truly infuriating story from NPR by Andrea Hsu. It’s called “Fired, Rehired, and Fired Again: Some Federal Workers Find They’re Suddenly Uninsured.” And it’s a situation that if a private employer did it, Congress would be all over them and it would be making huge headlines. These are federal workers who are trying to do the right thing for themselves and their families but who are being jerked around in impossible ways and have no idea not just whether they have jobs but whether they have health insurance, and whether the medical care that they’re getting while this all gets sorted out will be covered. It’s one thing to shrink the federal workforce, but there is some basic human decency for people who haven’t done anything wrong, and a lot of now-former federal workers are not getting it at the moment. 

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

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

Rovner: Anna. 

Edney: X and Bluesky, @annaedney. 

Rovner: Maya. 

Goldman: I am on X, @mayagoldman_. Same on Bluesky and also increasingly on LinkedIn. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).