The Host

Mary Agnes Carey
KFF Health News

@maryagnescarey

Read Mary Agnes' stories

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

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

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Slow Your Disenroll

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’

Episode Title: Slow Your Disenroll

Episode Number: 302

Published: June 15, 2023

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

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Carey: Rachel Cohrs of Stat.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi, everybody.

Carey: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carey: It was a7-2 ruling, right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cohrs: Yes. Yes. The Inflation Reduction Act.

Carey: Which he voted for, OK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dan Mendelson: My pleasure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: And NCQA, that’s …?

Mendelson: National Commission for Quality Assurance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mendelson: My pleasure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carey: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein.

Carey: Rachel.

Cohrs: @rachelcohrs.

Carey: And Sandhya.

Raman: @SandhyaWrites.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

Read Jessie's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News senior correspondent Sarah Jane Tribble, who reported the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” feature, about a patient with Swiss health insurance who experienced the sticker shock of the U.S. health care system after an emergency appendectomy. If you have an outrageous or exorbitant medical bill you want to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “This Nonprofit Health System Cuts Off Patients With Medical Debt,” by Sarah Kliff and Jessica Silver-Greenberg.

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

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

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Debt Deal Leaves Health Programs (Mostly) Intact

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

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?”. I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at KFF Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We are taping this week from the smoky, hazy, “code purple” Washington, D.C., area on Thursday, June 8, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Lauren Weber, of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hi.

Rovner: And Jessie Hellmann, of CQ Roll Call.

Hellmann: Hello.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kenen: I mean, this happens all the time.

Weber: All the time, right.

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

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

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

Weber: Yeah.

Kenen: Not all of it.

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

Kenen: It wasn’t zero.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: She’s far from a total novice.

Kenen: Yeah.

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

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

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

Kenen: Ninety-five.

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

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

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

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

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

Kenen: Paid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: We’re No. 1!

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Private insurers set prices.

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

Rovner: That’s true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kenen: Yeah. HIV and other things.

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

Sarah Jane Tribble: Thanks for having me.

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

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

Rovner: And how big was the ultimate bill?

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

Rovner: So not even overnight.

Tribble: No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tribble: Yeah.

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

Rovner: So what happened? Has this been resolved?

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

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

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

Rovner: So both ways.

Tribble: Yeah.

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

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

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

Tribble: Thanks so much.

Rovner: OK, we’re back, and it’s time for our extra credit segment. That’s where we each recommend a story we read this week that we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Lauren and Joanne, you’ve already given us yours, so Jessie, you’re next.

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

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

Kenen: @JoanneKenen

Rovner: Jessie.

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann

Rovner: Lauren.

Weber: @LaurenWeberHP

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

This week, KFF Health News’ weekly policy news podcast — “What the Health?” — celebrates its 300th episode with a wide-ranging discussion of what’s happened in health policy since it launched in 2017 and what may happen in the next decade.

For this special conversation, host and chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner is joined by three prominent “big thinkers” in health policy: Ezekiel Emanuel of the University of Pennsylvania; Jeff Goldsmith, president of Health Futures; and Farzad Mostashari, CEO of Aledade.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Since 2017, dissatisfaction has permeated the U.S. health care system. The frustrations of providers, patients, and others in the field point to a variety of structural problems — many of which are challenging to address through policymaking due to the strength of interest-group politics. The emergence of the huge, profitable “SuperMed” firm UnitedHealth Group and the rise of urgent virtual care have also transformed health care in recent years.
• As high costs and big profits dominate the national conversation, lawmakers and policymakers have delivered surprises, including the beginnings of regulation of drug prices. Even the Trump administration, with its dedication to undermining the Affordable Care Act, demonstrated interest in encouraging competition. Meanwhile, on the clinical side, a number of pharmaceuticals are proving especially effective at reducing hospitalizations.
• Looking forward, the face of insurance is changing. Commercial insurance is seeing profits evaporate, private Medicare Advantage plans are draining taxpayer dollars, and employers are making expensive, short-sighted coverage decisions. Some stakeholders see a critical need to reconsider how to be more efficient and effective at delivering care in the United States.
• The deterioration of the patient’s experience signals a major disconnect between the organizational problems providing care and the everyday dedication of individual providers: The local hospital may provide excellent service to a patient experiencing a heart attack, yet Medicare will not pay for patients to have blood pressure cuffs at home, for instance. Low reimbursements for primary care providers exacerbate these problems.

Plus, our experts — drawing on extensive experience making government and private-sector policy and even practicing medicine — name their top candidates for attainable improvements that would make a big difference in the health care system.

Further reading by the panelists from this week’s episode:

• Health Affairs’ “Nine Health Care Megatrends, Part 1: System and Payment Reform,” by Ezekiel J. Emanuel.
• Health Affairs’ “We Have a National Strategy for Accountable Care, So What’s Next?” by Sean Cavanaugh, Mandy K. Cohen, and Farzad Mostashari.
• The Health Care Blog’s “What Can We Learn From the Envision Bankruptcy?” by Jeff Goldsmith.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Our 300th Episode!

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’

Episode Title: Our 300th Episode!

Episode Number: 300

Published: June 1, 2023

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at KFF Health News. Usually I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. But today is our 300th episode, and we have something special planned. Instead of our usual news panel, I’ve invited some of my very favorite health policy thinkers, to cast the net a little wider, and talk about what’s happened to the health care system since we began the podcast in 2017 and what the future of health care might look like for the next, I don’t know, decade or so. So let me introduce our panel. We will put their full bios in the show notes. Otherwise, it would take our entire episode to talk about all that they have done. But it’s safe to say that these are not just some of the smartest people in health care, but also among the most accomplished, with experience making government health policy, private health policy, and, in two of the three cases, also practicing medicine. First up, we have Zeke Emanuel. He’s currently the vice provost for global initiatives and the co-director of the Healthcare Transformation Institute at the University of Pennsylvania. Hi, Zeke. Thanks for joining us.

Ezekiel Emanuel: Great. Wonderful to be here.

Rovner: Next, we have Jeff Goldsmith. He’s president of Health Futures, a health industry consulting firm and a longtime thinker, writer, and lecturer on all things health care — and, I must confess, one of the people who’s implanted many things in my head about what I think about health care. Thanks for joining us, Jeff.

Jeff Goldsmith: It’s a pleasure.

Rovner: Finally, we have Farzad Mostashari, who’s the founder and CEO of Aledade, a company that works with primary care physician practices that he modestly describes on his LinkedIn page as, quote, “helping independent practices save American health care. Thanks for coming, Farzad.

Mostashari: Pleasure to be here, Julie.

Rovner: So I want to divide this conversation into two main parts, roughly titled “Where We’ve Been” and “Where We’re Going,” and where we’ve been in this case means things that have happened since 2017, when the podcast began. For those of you who don’t remember, that was the first year of the Trump presidency, in the middle of the ultimately unsuccessful Republican effort to repeal and replace “Obamacare” and President Trump’s various executive decisions to try to undermine the Affordable Care Act in other ways. Anybody remember that fight over cost-sharing reductions? Let us please not recap that. So let us start not with cost sharing, but with the state of health care in 2017. I want to go around. What does each of you think is the biggest change in the health care system since 2017? Zeke, why don’t you start?

Emanuel: I think probably the biggest change is the growing dissatisfaction by every player in the system. I often say that if you remember back to 2010 — Farzad and I certainly remember, because of passage of the ACA — a lot of people were dissatisfied with the system. But frankly, the upper-middle-class hospitals were not dissatisfied with the system. And mostly the upper middle class could still call — get, you know, VIP care and make sure that they got their needs met. I don’t know anyone — anyone — in 2023 who is happy with the system; maybe there are a few people in the insurance industry who are for this very moment because their profits are higher. But everyone else, including every upper-middle-class and rich person I know, is pissed off and doesn’t think they’re getting good care and is just — doesn’t like the system. And I think that bespeaks very deep structural problems with our system. Different parts are actually doing fantastic, if you want to know the truth, in my opinion, like Farzad’s company giving great primary care, but the whole system sucks. And that I think is probably the biggest change. And again, it bespeaks burnout, it bespeaks payment problems, it bespeaks lots of other underlying problems.

Rovner: I feel like I know that that was growing leading up to the Affordable Care Act, how much the industry and everybody else just didn’t think the system was working, but I think it’s turning into anger. Jeff, what do you think is the biggest change since 2017?

Goldsmith: Well you know, for me, I guess the biggest surprise for me would be we finally got a “SuperMed.” You remember … [unintelligible] … thing about how we’re going to have 10 health systems that — you know, the entire country will be divided into 10 health systems. I think the biggest change has been the arrival of our first SuperMed, which is UnitedHealth Group. It’s doubled in size since 2016. It’s closing in on 3 billion a month in cash flow. So, I mean, I think we may not get another one, but we’ve certainly got one. And it’s on its way to being 10% of health care.

Rovner: And it’s very much — I mean, for people who don’t know — it’s very much more than an insurance company now.

Goldsmith: Yeah, it is. The insurance company is kind of a drag on earnings compared to several other pieces.

Rovner: Farzad, what do you think has changed most since 2017?

Mostashari: I remember in 2017, it really felt like UnitedHealth Group, what they were doing with Optum, was like a secret almost, and it certainly is not anymore. I think I would say covid happened, and one of the main things that has absolutely changed as a result of that is the availability of urgent virtual care. And pretty much all of us now — my mom, through her health system portal; my daughter, through her college portal; me, through my health plan portal — have access to basically hit a button and pretty quickly be able to see someone, usually a nurse practitioner, within a short amount of time. The consequences of that are going to be really interesting. I think, net, it is one of the few things that I think Zeke would agree is pleaser for people to be able to do that. But on the flip side of that, which is to be able to see a primary care doctor, for my parents, is three months out, and they’re 86 and they need to do it. So I think we’re seeing on the one hand, kind of a tale of two cities — like urgent, convenient care with someone who has no idea who you are is more available than ever, and longitudinal primary care with someone who has a long-term relationship with you is getting squeezed.

Rovner: I want to go around again. What’s the most unexpected change? And you don’t get to say the pandemic this time. Jeff, why don’t you start.

Goldsmith: Well, certainly the most unpleasant, unexpected change was the sudden flameout of Geisinger. That’s a really ominous development.

Rovner: Which we haven’t — we haven’t even talked about on the podcast yet. So you better give that a sentence or two.

Goldsmith: Well, Geisinger is — was — one of the elite multi-specialty clinics in the country. It was a follow-on to Mayo, 110-year-old, absolutely superb quality, and done everything in the integrated delivery system playbook. They had a large health plan. They had a widely distributed primary care network. They lost $840 million last year and were losing 20 million a month on operations — that’s arterial bleeding — and about six weeks ago announced a combination of some kind — don’t call it a merger — with Kaiser. It’s still not clear to me what they’ve done. But the big surprise to me was a $7 billion system that did everything you’re supposed to do ended up not being able to remain independent. That’s really scary to me.

Rovner: Yeah. Zeke, what surprised you the most?

Emanuel: I would say two things have surprised me the most. The first one was the fact that we got drug price regulation. Even that little bit we got, I think, very, very surprising. And I have to give credit to the administration. They’re using the small camel’s nose under the tent to really push it as big as they can, jawboning on insulin prices, etc. It’s far from ideal. You know, I’ve been as critical as anyone about the kind of compromises we had to make. But I think that we got something, and I think that’s really changed the psychology. So that would be one thing. The other thing, and here I may be attacked, is we’re still at 18% of GDP for health care spending. Predictions in 2010, even predictions in 2017, were to go over 20%. And we have actually — and it’s not because the economy has gone haywire on us; we’ve been growing at about 2% of GDP. Something is out there that is not as macro that has kept it — some of it’s high deductible, multifactorial. I do think that we also, you know, some of the things that Farzad mentioned, we’ve got virtual that is lower-cost. We do more home care. You know, hospital admissions continue to go down. Anyway, I do think that’s still a surprise. Now, people are feeling it because of high deductibles, because employers are transferring a lot more cost. Nonetheless, as a percent of GDP, it has remained flat for a decade.

Goldsmith: Right. It’ll be lower in ’22 than it was in ’21 when we finally get the numbers out.

Rovner: Farzad.

Mostashari: I want to continue on a little bit. It’s so easy to be pessimistic in health care and health policy. But again, some things that were a little bit — if you are so jaded and so scarred that you have very low expectations, even small victories, like Zeke said, end up being surprises to the upside. So I was surprised to the upside that the Trump administration, despite a lot of — you mentioned, a lot of efforts to undo the Affordable Care Act — were actually pretty good on value-based care and pretty good on turning attention to administrative simplification and to site-neutral payments and thinking about competition in health care markets. And those are obviously, all three of those, are things that the current administration’s support and is also continuing to push. So that was a pleasant surprise, I guess, to the to the upside.

Rovner: Also price transparency, right?

Mostashari: Yeah, I put that in the competition category. The other surprise is, for a long time — I spoke at a pharma group once, a bunch of CEOs, and I said, “Name me the drug that if I use more of it, there will be fewer hospitalizations.” And they kind of drew a blank, and they were like, “Well, vaccines?” And I was like, “OK, that’s pretty sad, right?” But now we actually have SGLT-2s, we have GLP-1s, like there’s actually a bunch of drugs that are going to be, I think, rightfully blockbusters that actually are making a big difference. And I think, in particular, the SGLT-2s I’m really excited about. They’re massively underutilized and I think —

Rovner: What are the SGLT-2s?

Mostashari: Zeke, you want to take this?

Emanuel: No, no, that’s you.

Mostashari: It’s a drug class that has proven to be pretty effective at reducing hospitalizations for people with congestive heart failure, with diabetes. And the more it’s studied, like — there’s a trend in pharma, right, or really anything, that, not what’s the first study with a second randomized trial, but what’s the fifth and sixth and seventh? Do they end up making the evidence stronger or reverting to the mean? And with these drug classes, they seem to be getting stronger and stronger and stronger and more and more generalized in terms of the potential benefit that they can bring. They’re expensive. But I remember a time when a lot of the drugs that are now generic were expensive. So if we take the long arc on this, I think this is going to be very good for health care.

Emanuel: Well, also, to the extent that they preempt hospitalizations, their cost-effectiveness — I don’t know what it is; I haven’t looked it up recently — but the cost-effectiveness is more reasonable, let us put it, than many other drugs that we get, particularly cancer drugs … [unintelligible].

Goldsmith: You know, there’s an even bigger one lurking out there if you’re talking about reducing hospitalizations, and that is the likelihood that we’ll have a dialysis-like solution for sepsis. There are a whole bunch of companies in this space. They’re attaching different molecules to the fibers. But we began seeing during covid, using some of these tools to take virus out of the blood, sepsis is a huge chunk of hospital utilization. It’s a huge chunk of expensive hospital utilization. And what, a third of the deaths, at least — if we could dialyze someone out of sepsis, I mean, it would be an enormous plus, both for health spending and for people’s lives.

Emanuel: I was just going to add one political element to what Farzad said first about the Trump administration, and this gets to how policy is made and the importance of personalities and people. There’s a whole school of history that people don’t matter, the blah, blah, blah. But the Trump administration’s interest in these various things, like price transparency, competition, site-neutral payments, and such, occurred only after they fired Secretary [of Health and Human Services Tom] Price. Secretary Price was sort of a health policy Neanderthal in that he wanted to go back to the 1950s. Many of your listeners will remember he greatly reduced their bundled payment experiments and randomized controlled trial by chopping it in, I think, half, or getting rid of a lot of places. He was totally for the old fee-for-service system, as an orthopedic surgeon, and I think once they got rid of him, actually the focus on, you know, how can we make this a better marketplace, which brings you, you know, not everything liberals can agree on that because many of the things go in, regulate prices and regulate access. And it’s an interesting thing. He had to be moved out for that change to actually happen.

Mostashari: But I’ll also say, though, putting political philosophy back in, not just personality, you look at what’s happening in Indiana, of all places, Zeke, where the legislature have been, I think, pretty forward on on some really great health policy stuff around, again, competition policy, noncompetes for doctors, certificate of need — like a whole bunch of stuff that have been anti-competitive, hospital price increasers they have taken square aim at. And I think that it aligns with like, if we’re going to have a market, like either we’re going to regulate really heavily, or we’re going to have a market-based approach that actually works, and you can’t have a market-based approach that works even a little if you have basically anti-competitive behaviors. So I think it actually does make sense.

Rovner: While we are on the subject of politics, the thing that I think most surprised me in the last seven years is that the pandemic did not convince everybody of the need for everybody to have some kind of health coverage. At the beginning, I thought, well, this is what’s going to get us to a national health plan, because everybody can get sick. And that didn’t happen. In fact, it feels like things got even more polarized. Did that surprise any of you guys or am I just being naive?

Goldsmith: We did get to a 91-million-person Medicaid program and a significant expansion of the exchanges. So it’s not like there wasn’t a realization that covering people had a salutary effect on the overall health of the population. It’s not clear that it lasted. I heard Sarah Huckabee Sanders on the radio the other day saying that throwing a bunch of people off of Medicaid was going to be liberating them from dependency. That was one of the most amazing Orwellian statements I’ve ever heard in my life. But it’s —

Emanuel: She thought if we got rid of her health insurance, it would liberate her from dependency?

Goldsmith: Oh, absolutely.

Mostashari: I do think that one of the things that took away that stink, though, Julie, was really pretty expansive and brave government action that made tests free, that made vaccines free, that made treatment, including monoclonals, free. If the concern was specifically the driver around covid, these programs that — 100% paid, regardless of your ability to pay, just like covered it at all, right? — I do think took away some of the drive that you were describing.

Rovner: And yet we’re peeling them all back one by one, you know, including —

Emanuel: Well, they were all emergency. I mean, all they have expansion was emergency. And, you know, that has to do with the way Washington budgets and all of that. I do think if we’re going to get to universal coverage, we’re going to have to get it in a way that keeps the costs under control. My own interpretation is we’ve reached the limit, and 18% is the limit. And if you want to get to 100% universal coverage, I can’t —

Mostashari: Oh, God, I can’t believe he just jinxed us like that.

Emanuel: I think that’s what the political economy says.

Rovner: You mean 18% of GDP?

Emanuel: Yeah. Yeah.

Goldsmith: But, Zeke, people are saying that when we got to 8, we were going to hit the wall. OK, you have a long enough memory, I mean —

Emanuel: I do, I do have that memory. But I do think you have seen more drastic action, as when things have gone up by employers to make it look less and less like insurance, frankly. And I do think that tells you where the limit is. And I think we’re going to have to think within that. And one of the things we have to do is be much more serious about areas where we have good evidence about cost savings. And we just haven’t done that. And for the last decade, every hospital — and I always talk about cost — but it’s a lot easier to negotiate higher rates from commercial than it is to actually be more efficient. And so what do they do? Focus on negotiating higher rates and have much more brains focusing on that than doing the time-motion studies to get efficient. Until they are forced, they’re not going to do that kind of efficiency. And that’s the thing. And you can’t do it on a dime. That’s the other thing, I think, partially that the Geisinger says: You can’t do the efficiency on a dime.

Goldsmith: Isn’t losing $20 million a month sort of a goad to action? I mean —

Emanuel: Well, Jeff, Jeff, here’s the question. I agree. But it couldn’t induce Geisinger to change fast enough. I mean, they didn’t have enough runway. If they were losing, that’s the first thing. And whether other hospitals and health systems are going to say, “Well, we have to get serious today,” I don’t know. I’m not privileged to their internal deliberations. I will say that, over the last decade, they’ve just continued the old playbook, as I’ve argued.

Mostashari: But I think that’s right, Zeke. But that’s what doesn’t give me hope in terms of your 18% political economy ceiling, because who’s going to make it, you know, like — and I don’t see the employers. I’d say if there’s one thing where there hasn’t been much change has been the employers continue to disappoint.

Rovner: Actually, Farzad, you’ve walked right into my next question, because I want to pivot to what’s going to happen, which is, who’s going to drive the health care train for the next decade?

Emanuel: I think employers are brain-dead on this. They are the worst part of the legion because they control all the profit and they have been terrible. They have chased very short-term profits or very short-term savings. What? Yeah, I know, I, well no, but —

Rovner: Farzad, Farzad’s making air quotes.

Emanuel: Farzad’s making the quotes, but absolutely it’s not been savings, but they’ve been listening to consultants who sold them a bill of goods and they haven’t been serious. And you know, to be honest, when you get something like Haven and you’ve got companies like J.P. Morgan and Amazon and Berkshire Hathaway making a hash of it, “What could I do?” is I think the response, and what they have to do is they have to get together and get out of health care in a responsible way, and that they are — they just, they can’t focus enough mind share on it.

Rovner: Even with, what was it, Amazon and J.P. Morgan? And I forget what the third one was.

Goldsmith: But Zeke, you know, right now the most profitable service line for those insurers isn’t commercial insurance; it’s Medicare Advantage

Emanuel: Yeah.

Goldsmith: And if I were to be a forecasting person, which I tend to do sometimes —

Emanuel: You are?

Goldsmith: I think, I think the profit is rapidly disappearing from commercial insurance, not only because more and more insurers are self-funded, or employers are self-funded and taking themselves out of the equation, but because the government can’t say no to its contractors — state governments, federal government. So I’m actually very concerned about the disappearance of the lever that commercial insurance represented in the emergence of a kind of a rent-seeking health insurance system.

Mostashari: That underscores the need, if more and more employers are self-insured, then they’re going to need to act. They can’t rely on the insurer; they need to demand something different than what they’ve been demanding from the TPAs [third-party administrators]. And I think that’s the opportunity, if I was going to be an optimist. I think that’s the opportunity. To Zeke’s point, from the beginning, everyone is unhappy. And if someone did come up with a TPA that promised cost corridors, as an example, more predictability, free stop loss, you know, like those kind of things and actually delivered slower trend, guaranteed lower trend on your rates. I think there’s room for that, but as Zeke said, not if they just keep listening to the same consultants.

Goldsmith: But Farzad, what seems to me has held them back is that their interest in health benefits cost is cyclical. When they’re awash in cash, they’re mainly interested in more cash; they’re not interested in tuning their health benefit and chasing away scarce workers. And right now, that scarcity of workers is one of the things that’s holding employers back from tightening down or fundamentally changing the logic of their health coverage — is that they are competing, particularly in the skilled part of our economy, for workers that they’re really having trouble getting. And to walk in the door and saying, “Well, we’re going to place all these conditions on, and we’re going to make you do X, Y, and Z,” they’re not going to do it.

Mostashari: I think the TPA 2.0, though — I agree with you that there’s typically been a zero-sum game around this between the employer and employee when it comes to less benefits, higher copays, higher deductibles, like, you’re taking something away from them. But you mentioned Medicare Advantage. What I think the promise has been there is you get more; the member gets more access to primary care or more benefits but for the same cost. And I agree with your facial expression there that our —

Goldsmith: I’m on Medicare Advantage. I mean, it’s just been a great big whoop. The main user experience has been robocalls, and I get about one every two months to send a nurse to my house to upcode me. That’s my Medicare Advantage experience. Big whoop.

Emanuel: So let me just say two things, one of which is I think the fact is that employers don’t have to go down the punitive route to have lower costs; they could focus on the provider and reorganize that system. And the problem of everyone in the system is just thinking about how do I screw the other provider, right? You know, how do I make doctors go through all this prior authorization so they won’t order that drug or they won’t order that MRI? That’s not a way to improve the system. That’s a way to make everyone pissed off.

Rovner: It’s doing a very good job at that.

Emanuel: Yeah, including the patient. Everyone hates it, and no one’s willing to get rid of it. I think Farzad is right; you need a total reconceptualization of how you’re going to deliver care so the answer is yes, not no. And what you get is better thinking so we’re more efficient and we get rid of the unnecessary stuff so that we can actually devote our time and attention and resources to people who need it. The second thing I would say, Jeff, is I think the wallowing and, and getting all the cream from Medicare Advantage is going to come to an end. I think the administration has sort of — you know, when you’re over 50% of the people and there’s all these articles coming out over and over again, you — I mean one of the things they haven’t realized — you end up in Washington putting a big target on your face. And Washington likes nothing more than, “These people are ripping off the government, and now we’re going to penalize them.” And I will say, you know, personally, we’ve started a very large project to try to fix the risk adjustment mechanism. We also need a large project, in my humble opinion, on fixing the fee structure, which is totally perverted.

Rovner: The fee structure for everybody or the fee structure for Medicare?

Emanuel: Well, if you fix it for Medicare, you’re going to fix it for everyone since they take Medicare prices and just inflate ’em. But I think those two things are going to happen, actually, if I had to say, over the next decade, and I do think the days of just getting tons of profit from Medicare Advantage are numbered.

Goldsmith: Well, but the way that’s going to work is, to sustain the 5% and to prevent their stock prices from falling, they’re going to come after providers hammer and tongs.

Rovner: They [being] the insurers, the Medicare Advantage companies.

Goldsmith: They’re just going to cut the rates. They’re not going to really, fundamentally — they’re not going to shift risks, Zeke. They’re not going to capitate them; they’re just going to cut the rates. So I think part of the dynamic there is you’re going to have the hospital folks kind of behind the scenes going, “Don’t cut Medicare Advantage, because we’re the people that are eventually going to bleed for it.” So I think the politics of doing this is actually a whole lot more complicated. You’re dead right; the mask is dropped. There’s a lot of games being played. But fixing it is going to be really hard politically.

Emanuel: Jeff, I agree with you. I think one of the major issues hospitals have to do — look, during covid, one of the tragedies is the government handed out $70 billion to hospitals and asked nothing in return. There was no, “Change this,” “focus on —”

Goldsmith: They asked them to stay open, Zeke They asked them to stay open 24/7 and to, you know, have their emergency room burn out and to suspend their elective care. What do you mean they didn’t ask them to do anything? They had to do those things to respond to the, the pandemic. Now, you’re saying you didn’t attach additional conditions about efficiency. Dead right, they didn’t.

Emanuel: Yeah.

Goldsmith: You’re right.

Emanuel: There was no structural change. $70 billion is a whole lot of money. And we ask no structural change for it. So we’re actually in a worse situation with hospitals today than we were before. And $70 went out the window.

Rovner: 70 billion.

Mostashari: Zeke and I first met when I was at the White House, the NEC [National Economic Council] or something, and we were arguing about $28 billion to take health care from paper and pen to electronic health records. And it seemed like a lot of money, 28 billion, to digitize American health care and, as Zeke is saying, 70 billion went out the door.

Goldsmith: Well, but, but remember what was going on. There was an authentic, bottomless national emergency. And we ended up throwing $6 trillion, $6 trillion, forget about 70 billion. We ended up throwing $6 trillion worth of money that we borrowed from our grandkids at that bottomless problem — not only covid, but the economic catastrophe that covid produced, the flash depression that the shutdowns produced. So there wasn’t a lot of time for fine-tuning the policy message here; it was shovel it out the door and pray.

Emanuel: Jeff, I agree. We had to rescue a very desperate situation. But it’s not as if the last decade hadn’t given us plenty of things that we could have asked the hospitals to do. Unlike —look, look, in 2009, when we were crafting the Affordable Care Act, I called around to everyone. I said, “All right, we got to change off fee-for-service to … [unintelligible]. What’s the best method to get doctors to do the right thing, to get standardized care, to reduce the inefficiencies,” blah, blah, blah. We hadn’t tried anything. 2021, 2020, we had actually better ideas about how we could implement change and actually make the system better. And we implemented … [unintelligible]. And that, I think, was a missed major opportunity.

Rovner: And actually that is sort of my next question. I want to bring this back to the patient. Zeke, you referred to this; the patient experience has gotten worse. We’ve heard it from everybody here. The more we can do to help people and cure them and treat their ailments, the more differentiated and diverse the system becomes and the much harder it is to navigate. I mean, is there any hope of doing something to improve the patient experience over maybe the next decade?

Goldsmith: Well, I’ll tell you. You asked Zeke; I got sick during 2015 to 2017. So after being a big expert on our health care system for 40 years, I actually used it: five major surgeries in 29 months. And my experience was very different than the picture you guys have been painting. Only three of the people that touched me were over the age of 40. That was a big difference. Getting rid of the boomers might help a lot, but I was astonished by the level of commitment and the team-based care that I got. They were all over it. It was really encouraging to me, scared to death though I was, that the level of service that I got — and I’m not an elite patient. I mean, in a couple of those instances, it was my local community hospital; it wasn’t the University of Chicago that was taking care of me. I was really pleasantly surprised by the level of teamwork and the commitment of the care teams that took care of me. It gave me hope that I didn’t have before.

Mostashari: And I think we always get into this when we start talking about organizations versus people, and the people — and there’s no one like the people in medicine, and they would do anything for their patients, they love their patients, and they’re trying to work against a system that structurally is against doing the right thing for the patient, that we know can help the patient. And there’s no doubt that once someone has a stroke, we spring into action. The question is, did that person have to have a stroke? How well are we doing at controlling blood pressure, Jeff? We suck at controlling blood pressure: 65% control rates. And we know that that’s going to prevent heart attacks and strokes. Once we — once someone has a heart attack, like, we will deliver excellent customer service to the person with a heart attack, and they will be grateful and they will say, “Doc, you saved my life,” but we won’t invest in allowing people to have Medicare to pay for blood pressure cuffs at home, right? Like, that’s what we are grappling with in health care and medicine, is that disjunct between the organizational incentives and delivery system that follows from it versus the dedication and the compassion of the people in it every day.

Emanuel: So, Julie, one of the things I would say over the next decade that we have to do, and here you have a specialist bowing to Farzad, which is we have to pay more for primary care. Right now, the system pays something like 7%. And in some markets like mine, in Philadelphia, it’s under 5%. It’s outrageously bad, that amount. We have to give primary care doctors more and expect more out of them. What do we have to expect? Chronic care coordination. The primary care doc ought to be your navigator, and we need to have them or someone in their practice, is the first line for mental health and behavioral health services, right? That kind of package, including, you know — and we could go on — extended office hours, etc., etc. That has to happen. And us specialists, my kind of folk, we need to be less. And I think that has got to be one of the shifts we make that will make the patient experience better; I think it’ll make the management of these chronic illnesses like hypertension — I’m completely on board with Farzad; that should be focus, focus, focus. I think that’s a critical change. And what gives me hope — again, I’m by nature a very optimistic person — what gives me hope is Farzad’s company and the 20 others in that space that are doing a bang-up job of primary care and showing that it can be done and it can be done well and cost-effectively and better for patients, and I think we have to embrace that. And one of the things that’s going to be critical is more value-based payments, changing the physician fee schedule, and things like that.

Goldsmith: Well, not to disagree at all that there’s an absurd pay gradient between primary care physicians and specialists, but think about why we have so many specialists in the first place and why they have so much political power and influence in our health policy environment. A lot of the young people that are coming out of medical training today are carrying 3 or 400 grand in debt. That is very different than Europe, where we’re not expecting people to bear this huge burden in going into medicine. Wouldn’t it be easier for people to go into primary care if they didn’t have to worry about the fact that if they go into primary care, they’re going to be 65 and on Medicare before those debts are paid off, and maybe not at all. So we’ve created some of this by how expensive medical education is, by how expensive general education is, for that matter. And we’re not going to do anything about that.

Emanuel: And the solution to that is trivial, right? It might be a $30 billion solution, which would be, you know, whatever — .07% tax on every dollar poured into a fund to fund education. It’s idiocy.

Goldsmith: But politically, Zeke, what you’re doing is giving $30 billion to the wealthiest professional group in the country. That’s the way it’s going to play politically. How are those folks in Alabama, you know, that are, they’re on Medicaid, going to view taking $30 billion and giving it to your kids or grandkids that want to be doctors?

Emanuel: I totally agree with you. It needs to be … [unintelligible].

Mostashari: I don’t disagree that there’s a big difference in cost of medical education here versus other countries. I do wonder, though, in that hypothetical where we make medical education free, if you still have the kind of disparities in pay between the anesthesiology and the surgeon and the primary care doc. I still think we’re — we would be in a place where primary care slots went unfilled this year.

Goldsmith: Not surprising.

Mostashari: Right.

Goldsmith: Not surprising at all.

Mostashari: And we have a big shortage. And, you know, we have urologists who employ 17 nurses and other people to increase the throughput of the practice, right? And a primary care capacity, a lot of that could be augmented. You don’t need necessarily to wait until we graduate a whole new crop of doctors. We could actually supplement our primary care capacity if there was more money in primary care. And as Zeke says, I don’t mean just increasing the fee schedule or just paying more, although that would be nice, but tying it to outcomes that actually make it so that we can pay more for primary care in a way that’s budget-neutral.

Emanuel: But it’s a crazy thing because all we would have to do is spend 3% more of total medical spending on primary care. And guess what? You’d increase their revenue 50%. And that would, Farzad’s — that would make — that would be transformative. And you could get that 3%, you know, 1½ from hospitals, from specialists, from other, and they would barely — well, … [unintelligible] … hospitals might notice. But in general, it wouldn’t be a tragedy to any other part of the system. And that’s the insanity of where we’re at. And as Jeff, I think correctly, points out, is, you know, the political optics of this and the political power of these various different groups going to marshal against it — I mean, you could take 1% of it from pharma, easy, maybe even 2% from pharma, easy. The thing which makes me pessimistic now — I was optimistic, now pessimistic — the thing which makes me pessimistic is the sclerosis which makes these kind of structural changes impossible, and that’s basically interest group politics. And it doesn’t cost much. That’s what’s crazy. You know, United can spend $1 billion a year running ads against various congresspeople to keep its position, and its profit margin wouldn’t be affected.

Rovner: All right. We can go on all day. I would love to go on all day, but I know you guys have places to get, so I want to ask one last question of each of you. If there’s one piece of low-hanging fruit that we could accomplish to, I won’t say fix the health care system, but to make it better over the next decade, what would it be? If you could wave a wand and just change one small part of the system?

Goldsmith: We need a Medicare formulary. I’m sorry, we need a Medicare formulary, and we need to basically put a bullet in the PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] business on the way to doing it. That would be mine. And that would free up tens of billions of dollars that we could use to finance some of the stuff that Zeke and Farzad have been talking about.

Rovner: I think that may be the one thing that Congress is actively looking at, so —

Goldsmith: We’ll see how far they get.

Rovner: Yeah. Farzad.

Mostashari: I think we talked about it: competition. I think there’s a — there needs to be a coordinated government regulatory, DOJ [Department of Justice], [Department of] Commerce, CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] response to competition policy — FTC [Federal Trade Commission], obviously — that looks at all the different issues: the payment policies that are digging the hole deeper, like site-neutral payments. I think you need to look at the nonprofit hospitals and which jurisdiction applies to them. I think you need to look at transparency. I think you need to look at transparency around ownership of physician practices. I think there needs to be noncompetes. I think there needs to be a whole set of things that tilt the field towards more competition in health care markets, because if you are big and have, you know, the will to use that market power to say all-or-none contracting, no tiering, no steering, no — none of that, right — then there’s just no purchase for any health care payment or delivery reforms, because you’re big and fat and happy and you don’t care.

Rovner: And you’re making your shareholders happy. Zeke.

Emanuel: Let me give one clinical and one that’s more policy. So the clinical is, Farzad already mentioned it, if we would focus on controlling blood pressure well in this country. We’ve got more than a hundred guidelines, you’ve got cheap, 200 drugs for this. It would both improve longevity, decrease morbidity, and reduce disparities, that single thing. And Farzad is the one who turned me on. I know exactly the place on our walks that he put the bug in my ear about it. We should be focused on that because, among other things, it’s a huge producer of disparities between Blacks and whites in terms of renal failure, blah, blah, blah. The one policy thing I think is we know we spend a trillion dollars on administration. It’s a ludicrous amount of money. We know what the solutions are, and a lot of them don’t require that much policy. What we need is someone in the federal government whose job it is to wake up every day and get that money going. Now, the federal government wouldn’t make that much of it, by the way. That’s one of the reasons the federal government hasn’t taken this on, because they do have standardized billing and blah, blah, blah. But everyone agrees that’s a ridiculous amount of money and it’s producing no health benefit. If anything, it’s producing stress, which is not a good thing. And I think the conservative estimates by David Cutler and Nikhil [Sahni] are, you know, we’re talking $250 billion. I mean, that’s real, real money. And it’s no health benefit, and no one likes that stuff. And a lot of it’s about gaming. And so I think that’s a place — and you’d, again, have to put some serious government backbone, including threats, behind it. But I think that’s free money.

Rovner: Well, we will see if any of this happens. I could go on all afternoon, but I promised I would let you all get back to your day jobs. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our ever-patient producer, Francis Ying, for helping gather all of this together. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m @jrovner. We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Remote Work: An Underestimated Benefit for Family Caregivers,” by Joanne Kenen

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

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

click to open the transcript

Transcript: When an Anti-Vaccine Activist Runs for President

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’

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

Episode Number: 299

Published: May 25, 2023

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

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

Rachel Cohrs: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, Julie.

Rovner: And Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ollstein: That’s right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: And which hasn’t happened yet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: To fix it if they need to.

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

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

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

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

Karlin-Smith: Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aneri Pattani: Thanks so much for having me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Cool.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pattani: Thank you so much.

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

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

Rovner: We can perhaps adapt. Alice.

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

Rovner: Rachel.

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

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

Karlin-Smith: I’m @SarahKarlin.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs: @rachelcohrs.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

The fate of the abortion pill mifepristone remains in jeopardy, as an appellate court panel during a hearing this week sounded sympathetic to a lower court’s ruling that the FDA should not have approved the drug more than two decades ago. No matter how the appeals court rules, the case seems headed for the Supreme Court.

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

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

Panelists

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories

Rachel Roubein
The Washington Post

@rachel_roubein

Read Rachel's stories

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “A 150-Year-Old Law Could Help Determine the Fate of U.S. Abortion Access,” by Dan Diamond and Ann E. Marimow.

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

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

click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Abortion Pill Goes Back to Court

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’

Episode Title: The Abortion Pill Goes Back to Court

Episode Number: 298

Published: May 18, 2023

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at KFF Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, May 18, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Rachel Roubein: Hi. Thanks for having me.

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios.

Victoria Knight: Hi. Good morning.

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Hi, and good morning, everyone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roubein: Yeah, it does include PrEP.

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

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

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

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

Roubein: Millions of them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: So we’re noticing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Rachel.

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

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

Raman: @SandhyaWrites.

Rovner: Rachel.

Roubein: @rachel_roubein.

Rovner: Victoria.

Knight: @victoriaregisk.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

The formal end May 11 of the national public health emergency for covid-19 will usher in lots of changes in the way Americans get vaccines, treatment, and testing for the coronavirus. It will also change the way some people get their health insurance, with millions likely to lose coverage altogether.

Meanwhile, two FDA advisory committees voted unanimously this week to allow the over-the-counter sale of a specific birth control pill. Advocates of making the pill easier to get say it could remove significant barriers to the use of effective contraception and prevent thousands of unplanned pregnancies every year. The FDA, however, must still formally approve the change, and some of its staff scientists have expressed concerns about whether teenagers and low-literacy adults will be able to follow the directions without the direct involvement of a medical professional.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico, Tami Luhby of CNN, and Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Tami Luhby
CNN

@luhby

Read Tami's stories

Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times

@sangerkatz

Read Margot's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The formal public health emergency may be over, but covid definitely is not. More than 1,000 people in the United States died of the virus between April 19 and April 26, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While most Americans have put covid in their rearview mirrors, it remains a risk around the country.
• The Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on “ghost networks,” lists of health professionals distributed by insurance companies who are not taking new patients or are not actually in the insurance company’s network. Ghost networks are a particular problem in mental health care, where few providers take health insurance at all.
• Another trend in the business of health care is primary care practices being bought by hospitals, insurance companies, and even Amazon. This strategy was popular in the 1990s, as health systems sought to “vertically integrate.” But now the larger entities may have other reasons for having their own networks of doctors, including using their patients to create revenue streams.
• Court battles continue over the fate of the abortion pill mifepristone, as a federal appeals court in New Orleans prepares to hear arguments about a lower-court judge’s ruling that would effectively cancel the drug’s approval by the FDA. In West Virginia, the maker of the generic version of the drug is challenging the right of the state to ban medication approved by federal officials. At the same time, a group of independent abortion clinics from various states is suing the FDA to drop restrictions on how mifepristone can be prescribed, joining mostly Democratic-led states seeking to ensure access to the drug.

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

Julie Rovner: Slate’s “Not Every Man Will Be as Dumb as Marcus Silva,” by Moira Donegan and Mark Joseph Stern.

Joanne Kenen: The Baltimore Banner’s “Baltimore Isn’t Accessible for People With Disabilities. Fixing It Would Cost Over $650 Million,” by Hallie Miller and Adam Willis.

Tami Luhby: CNN’s “Because of Florida Abortion Laws, She Carried Her Baby to Term Knowing He Would Die,” by Elizabeth Cohen, Carma Hassan, and Amanda Musa.

Margot Sanger-Katz: The New Yorker’s “The Problem With Planned Parenthood,” by Eyal Press.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• CNN’s “Here’s How the End of the Covid-19 Public Health Emergency Affects You,” by Tami Luhby and Alex Leeds Matthews.
• The New York Times’ “Corporate Giants Buy Up Primary Care Practices at Rapid Pace,” by Reed Abelson.
• Vox’s “Independents Back Abortion Rights. They’re Less Sure Democrats Do,” by Rachel M. Cohen.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Crisis Is Officially Ending, but Covid Confusion Lives On

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at KFF Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We are taping this week on Thursday, May 11, at 10:30 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Tami Luhby, of CNN.

Tami Luhby: Hello.

Rovner: Margot Sanger Katz, The New York Times.

Sanger-Katz: Good morning.

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: So the news on the debt ceiling standoff, just so you know, is that there is no news. Congressional leaders and White House officials are meeting again on Friday, and we still expect to not see this settled until the last possible minute. But there was plenty of other health news. We will start with the official end of the U.S. public health emergency for covid. We have talked at some length about the Medicaid unwinding that’s now happening and a potential to end some telehealth service reimbursement. But there’s a lot more that’s going away after May 11. Tami, you’ve been working to compile everything that’s about to change. What are the high points here?

Luhby: Well, there are a lot of changes depending on what type of insurance you have and whether we’re talking about testing, treatment, or vaccines. So I can give you a quick rundown. We wrote a visual story on this today. If you go to CNN.com, you’ll find it on the homepage right now.

Rovner: I will link to it in the show notes for the podcast.

Luhby: Basically, many people will be paying more for treatments and for tests. However, vaccines will generally remain free for almost everyone. And basically, if you look at our story, you’ll see the color-coded guide as to how it may impact you. But basically, testing — at-home tests are no longer guaranteed to be free. So if you’ve been going to your CVS or somewhere else to pick up your eight tests a month, your insurer may opt to continue providing it for free, but I don’t think many will. And then for lab tests, again, it really depends. But if you have Medicaid, all tests will be free through 2024. However, if you have private insurance or Medicare, you will probably have to start paying out-of-pocket for tests that are ordered by your provider. Those deductibles, those pesky deductibles, and copays or coinsurance will start kicking in again. And for treatments, it’s a little bit different again. The cost will vary by treatment if you have Medicare or private insurance. However, Paxlovid and treatments that are purchased by the federal government, such as Paxlovid, will be free as long as supplies last. Now, also, if you’re uninsured, there is a whole different situation. It’ll be somewhat more difficult for them. But there are still options. And, you know, the White House has been working to provide free treatments and vaccines for them.

Rovner: So if you get covid, get it soon.

Luhby: Like today. Right, exactly. Yeah, but with vaccines, even though, again, they’re free as long as the federal supplies last — but because of the Affordable Care Act, the CARES Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, people with private insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid will actually continue to be able to get free vaccines after the federal supplies run out.

Rovner: After May 11.

Luhby: It’s very confusing.

Rovner: It is very confusing. That’s why you did a whole graphic. Joanne, you wanted to add something.

Kenen: And the confusion is the problem. We have lots of problems, but, like, last week, we talked a little bit about this. You know, are we still in an emergency? We’re not in an emergency the way we were in 2020, 2021, but it’s not gone. We all know it’s much, much better, but it’s not gone. And it could get worse again, particularly if people are confused, if people don’t know how to test, if people don’t know that they can still get things. The four of us are professionals, and, like, Tami’s having to read this complicated color-coded chart — you know, you get this until September 2024, but this goes away in 2023. And, you know, if you have purple insurance, you get this. And if you have purple polka-dotted insurance, you get that. And the lack of clarity is dangerous, because if people don’t get what they’re eligible for because they hear “emergency over, everything — nothing’s free anymore” — we’re already having trouble with uptake. We don’t have enough people getting boosters. People don’t know that they can get Paxlovid and that it’s free and that it works. We are still in this very inadequate response. We’re not in the terrifying emergency of three years ago, but it’s not copacetic. You know, it’s not perfect. And this confusion is really part of what really worries me the most. And the people who are most likely to be hurt are the people who are always most likely to be hurt: the people who are poor, the people who are in underserved communities, the people who are less educated, and it’s disproportionately people in minority communities. We’ve seen this show before, and that’s part of what I worry about — that there’s a data issue that we’ll get to whenever Julie decides to get to it, right?

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, and that’s the thing. With so much of the emergency going away, we’re not really going to know as much as we have before.

Sanger-Katz: In some ways, how you feel about this transition really reflects how you feel about the way that our health care system works in general. You know, what happened for covid is —and I’m oversimplifying a little bit — is we sort of set up a single-payer system just for one disease. So everyone had access to all of the vaccines, everyone had access to all of the tests, everyone had access to all of the treatments basically for free. And we also created this huge expansion of Medicaid coverage by no longer allowing the states to kick people out if they no longer seem to be eligible. So we had the kind of system that I think a lot of people on the left would like to see, not just for one disease but for every disease, where you have kind of more universal coverage and where the cost of obtaining important treatments and prevention is zero to very low. And this is definitely going to be a bumpy transition, but it’s basically a transition to the way our health care system works for every other disease. So if you are someone who had some other kind of infectious disease or a chronic disease like cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, whatever, you’ve been sort of dealing with all of this stuff the whole time — that you have to pay for your drugs; that, you know, that testing is expensive; that it’s confusing where you get things; that, you know, there’s a lot of complexity and hoops you have to jump through; that a lot depends on what kind of insurance you have; that what kind of insurance you can get depends on your income and other demographic characteristics. And so I find this transition to be pretty interesting because it seems like it would be weird for the United States to just forever have one system for this disease and another system for every other disease. And of course, we do have this for people who are experiencing kidney disease: They get Medicare, they get the government system, regardless of whether they would otherwise be eligible for Medicare.

Rovner: We should point out that Congress did that in 1972. They haven’t really done it since.

Kenen: And when it was much more rare than it was today.

Rovner: And when people didn’t live very long with it mostly.

Kenen: We didn’t have as much diabetes either.

Sanger-Katz: But anyway, I just think this transition kind of just gives us a moment to reflect on, How does the system work in general? How do we feel about how the system works in general? Are these things good or bad? And I agree with everything that Joanne said, that the confusion around this is going to have public health impacts as relates to covid. But we have lots of other diseases where we just basically have the standard system, and now we’re going to have the standard system for covid, too.

Kenen: You could have gone to the hospital with the bad pneumonia and needed oxygen, needed a ventilator, and when they tested you, if you had covid, it was all free. And if you had, you know, regular old-fashioned pneumonia, you got a bill. I agree with everything Margot said, but it’s even that silly. You could have had the same symptoms in your same lungs and you had two different health care systems and financing systems. None of us have ever thought anything made sense.

Rovner: Yes, well, I actually —

Kenen: That’s why we have a podcast. Otherwise, you know —

Sanger-Katz: And also the way that the drugs and vaccines were developed was also totally different, right? With the government deeply involved in the technology and development, you know, funding the research, purchasing large quantities of these drugs in bulk in advance. I mean, this is just not the way that our system really works for other diseases. It’s been a very interesting sort of experiment, and I do wonder whether it will be replicated in the future.

Luhby: Right. But it was also clear that this is not the beginning of the pushback. I mean, Congress has not wanted to allocate more money, you know, and there’s been a lot of arguments and conflicts over the whole course of this so-called single-payer system, or this more flexible system. So the U.S.’ approach to health care has been pushing its way in for many months.

Rovner: I naively, at the beginning of the pandemic, when we first did this and when the Republicans all voted for it, it’s like, let’s have the federal government pay the hospitals for whatever care they’re providing and make everything free at point of service to the patient — and I thought, Wow, are we going to get used to this and maybe move on? And I think the answer is exactly the opposite. It’s like, let’s get rid of it as fast as we possibly can.

Kenen: There’s money that the government has put in. I believe it is $5 billion into the next generation of vaccines and treatments, because the vaccine we have has certainly saved many lives. But as we all know, it’s not perfect. You know, it’s preventing death, but not infection. It’s not ending circulation of the disease. So we need something better. This debt ceiling fight, if the people in the government could spend all $5 billion today — like we were joking, if you want to get covid, if you’re going to get covid, get it today — I mean, if they could, they would spend all $5 billion of it today, too, because that could be clawed back. I mean, that’s — it’s going to be part of the coming fight.

Luhby: But the question is, even if they develop it, will anyone take it, or will enough people take it? That’s another issue.

Rovner: Well, since we’re sort of on the subject, I’m going to skip ahead to what I was going to bring up towards the end, which I’m calling “This Week in Our Dysfunctional Health System.”

Kenen: We could call it that way every week.

Rovner: Yes, that’s true. But this is particularly about how our health system doesn’t work. First up is “ghost networks.” Those are where insurers provide lists of health care providers who are not, in fact, available to those patients. A quote “secret shopper survey” by the staff of the Senate Finance Committee found that more than 80% of mental health providers found in insurance directories in 12 plans from six states were unreachable, not accepting new patients, or not actually in network. This is not a new problem. We’ve been hearing about it for years and years. Why does it persist? One would think that you could clean up your provider directory. That would be possible, right?

Kenen: Didn’t they legislate that, though? Didn’t they say a few years ago you have to clean it up? I mean, there are going to be some mistakes because there’s, you know, many, many providers and people will make changes or leave practices or … [unintelligible] …  jobs or whatever. But I thought that they had supposedly, theoretically, taken care of this a couple years ago in one of the annual regulations for ACA or something.

Rovner: They supposedly, theoretically, took care of the hospitals reporting their prices in a way that consumers can understand, too. So we’ve discovered in our dysfunctional health care system that Congress passing legislation or HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] putting out rules doesn’t necessarily make things so.

Kenen: Really?

Rovner: Yeah. I just — this was one that I had thought, Oh, boy, I have a whole file on that from like the 1990s.

Sanger-Katz: It’s a huge problem, though. I mean —

Rovner: Oh, it is.

Sanger-Katz: You know, we have a system where, for large groups of Americans, you are expected to shop for a health insurance plan. If you’re purchasing a marketplace plan for yourself, if you are purchasing a Medicare Advantage plan when you become eligible for Medicare, and in many cases, if you have a choice of employer plans, you know, you’re supposed to pick the plan that’s best for you. And we have a system that tells people that having those kinds of choices is good and maximizes the benefits to people, to be able to pick the best plan. But for a lot of people, being able to have the doctors and hospitals that they use or to have a choice of a wide range of doctors for various problems, including mental health services, is a huge selling point of one plan versus another. And again, you have these ghost networks, when you have this lack of transparency and accuracy of this information, it just causes people to be unable to make those good choices and it undermines the whole system of market competition that underpins all of this policy design. I think you can argue that there are not a million gazillion people who are actually shopping on the basis of this. But I do think that knowing whether your medical providers are covered when you’re choosing a new health care plan is actually something that a lot of people do look into when they are choosing a health insurance plan. And discovering that a doctor that you’ve been seeing for a long time and whose relationship you really value and whose care has been important to you is suddenly dishonestly represented as a part of an insurance plan that you’ve selected is just, you know, it’s a huge disappointment. It causes huge disruptions in people’s care. And I think the other thing that this study highlighted is that health insurance coverage for mental health services continues to be a very large problem. There has been quite a lot of legislation and regulation trying to expand coverage for mental health care. But there are these kind of lingering problems where a lot of mental health care providers simply don’t accept insurance or don’t accept very many patients who have insurance. And so I think that this report did a good job of highlighting that place where I think these problems are even worse than they are with the health care system at large. It’s just very hard to find mental health care providers who will take your insurance.

Rovner: And I would say, when you’re in mental health distress or you have a relative who’s in mental health distress, the last thing you need is to have to call 200 different providers to find one who can help you.

Kenen: A lot of the ones that are taking insurance are these online companies, and the good thing is that they’re taking insurance and that there may be convenience factors for people, although there’s also privacy and other factors on the downside. But there have been reports about, your data is not private, and I have no idea how you find out which company is a good actor in that department and which company is just selling identifiable data. I mean, I think it was The Washington Post that had a story about that a couple of weeks ago. You know, you click in on something — straight to the data broker. So, yeah, you get insurance coverage, but at a different price.

Rovner: Well, overlaid over all of this is consolidation, this time at the primary care level of health care. Margot, your colleague Reed Abelson had a big story this week on primary care practices being bought up by various larger players in the health care industry, including hospitals, insurance companies, pharmacy chains, and even Amazon. These larger entities say this can act as a move towards more coordinated, value-based care, which is what we say we all want. But there’s also the very real possibility that these giant, vertical, mega medical organizations can just start to name their own price. I mean, this is something that the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] in theory could go after but has been kind of loath to and that Congress could go after but has also been kind of loath to.

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, in some ways we’ve seen this movie before. There was a big wave of primary care acquisitions that happened, I think, in the 1990s by hospitals. And the hospitals learned pretty quickly that primary care doctors are kind of a money-losing proposition, and they divested a lot. But I think what Reed documented so nicely is that the entities that are buying primary care now are more diverse and they have different business strategies. So it’s not just hospitals who are sort of trying to get more patients referred to their higher-profit specialists, but it’s also Medicare Advantage insurers who benefit from being able to tell the primary care doctors to diagnose their patients with lots of diseases that generate profits for the plan, and it’s other kinds of groups that see primary care as kind of the front door to other services that can be revenue-generating. And it’s very — it will be very interesting to see what the effects of these will be and whether these will turn out to be good business decisions for these new entities and of course also whether it will turn out to be good for patient care.

Rovner: Yeah, I remember in the 1990s when hospitals were buying up doctor practices, the doctors ended up hating it because they were asked to work much harder, see patients for a shorter period of time, and some of them actually — because they were now on salary rather than being paid for each patient — were cutting back on, you know, in general, on the amount of care they were providing. And that was what I think ended up with a lot of these hospitals divesting. It didn’t work out the way the hospitals hoped it would. But as you point out, Margot, this is completely different, so we will — we will see how this moves on. All right. Let’s go back a little bit. We’re going to talk about abortion in a minute. But first, something that could prevent a lot of unintended pregnancies: On Wednesday, an advisory committee for the Food and Drug Administration — actually two advisory committees — unanimously recommended that the agency approve an over-the-counter birth control pill. This has been a long time coming here in the U.S., even though pills like these are available without prescription in much of Europe and have been for years. But while the FDA usually follows the recommendations of its advisory committees, we know that some FDA scientists have expressed concerns about over-the-counter availability. So what’s the problem with giving women easier access to something that so many depend on?

Kenen: There are trade-offs. And there are — some of the scientists at the FDA are more conservative than others about, What if the woman doesn’t understand how to take the pill properly? Things like that. I mean, obviously, if we go the over-the-counter route, as other countries are doing, there have to be very simple, easy-to-understand explanations in multiple languages. Pharmacists should be able to explain it like, you know, “You have to take it every day, and you have to take it at approximately the same time every day,” and things like that. So, you know, obviously not taking it right doesn’t protect you as much as taking it right. But there are a lot of people who will be able to get it. You know, getting a prescription is not always the easiest thing in the world. Or if you’re lucky, you just click on something and somebody calls your doctor and gets you a refill. But that doesn’t always work and not everybody has access to that, and you have to still see your doctor sometimes for renewals. So if you’re a working person who doesn’t have sick leave and you have to take time off from work every three months to get a refill or you have to hire child care or you have to take three buses — you know, it takes a whole day, and then you sit in a waiting room at a clinic. I mean, our health system is not patient-friendly.

Rovner: I was going to say, to go back to what Tami was talking about earlier — if pills are available over the counter, it’s going to depend on, you know, what your insurance is like, whether you would get it covered.

Kenen: The cost.

Rovner: That’s right. And it could end up being —

Kenen: But I don’t think the FDA is concerned about that.

Rovner: No, they’re not. That’s not their job.

Kenen: The pill is pretty safe, and these are lower-dose ones than the pills that were invented, you know, 50 years ago. These are lower-dose, safer drugs with fewer side effects. But I mean, there’s concern about the rare side effect, there’s concern about people not knowing how to take it, all that kind of stuff. But Julie just mentioned the cost of coverage is a separate issue because under the ACA it’s covered. And if it becomes over the counter, the mechanism for getting that covered is, at this point, unclear.

Sanger-Katz: But we do have a system now where, for a lot of women, obtaining birth control pills depends on being able to get a doctor’s appointment on a regular basis. I think, you know, this is not standard practice, but I do think that there are a lot of OB-GYNs who basically won’t write you for a birth control pill unless you come in on a regular basis to receive other kinds of health screenings. And I think many of them do that with good intentions because they want to make sure that people are getting Pap smears and other kinds of preventive health services. But on the other hand, it does mean that there are a lot of women who, if they don’t have time or they can’t afford to come in for regular doctor’s appointments, lose access to birth control. And I think over-the-counter pills is one way of counteracting that particular problem.

Rovner: And I think that’s exactly why so many of the medical groups are urging this. During the more than a decade-long fight over making the morning-after pill over the counter, the big hang-up was what to do about minors. Even President Obama, a major backer of women’s reproductive health rights, seemed unhappy at the idea of his then-barely teenage daughters being able to get birth control so easily and without notifying either parent. It seems unimaginable that we’re not going to have that same fight here. I mean, literally, we spent six years trying to figure out what age teens could be to safely buy morning-after pills, which are high doses of basically these birth control pills. I’m actually surprised that we haven’t really seen the minor fight yet.

Kenen: I think everyone’s waiting for somebody else to do it first. I mean, like Julie, I wasn’t expecting to hear more about age limitations, and that’ll probably come up when the FDA acts, because I think the advisory committee just wanted to — they were pretty strong saying, “Yeah, make this OTC.”

Sanger-Katz: I also think the politics around emergency contraception are a little bit different because I think that, while physicians understand that those pills are basically just high-dose birth control pills and that they work in just the same way as typical contraception, I think there’s a perception among many members of the public that because you can take them after unprotected sex, that they might be something closer to an abortion. Now, that is not true, but because I think that is a common misperception, it does lead to more discomfort around the availability of those pills, whereas birth control pills — while I think there are some people who object to their wide dissemination and certainly some who are concerned about them in the hands of children, I think they are more broadly accepted in our society.

Rovner: We obviously are going to see, and we’ll probably see fairly soon. We’re expecting, I guess, a decision from the FDA this summer, although with the morning-after pill we expected a decision from FDA that lingered on for many months, in some cases many years.

Kenen: And I think it’s at least hypothetically possible that states will not do what the FDA says. Say the FDA says they can be over the counter with no age limitations. I can see that becoming a fight in conservative states. I mean, I don’t know exactly the mechanism for how that would fall, but I could certainly think that somebody is going to dream up a mechanism so that a 12-year-old can’t get this over the counter.

Rovner: I want to move to abortion because first up is the continuing question over the fate of the abortion pill, which we get to say at this point: not the same as the emergency contraceptive pill, which, as Margot said, is just high-dosage regular birth control pills. Needless to say, that’s the one that we’re having the current court action over. And there was even more action this week, although not from that original case, which will be heard by the Court of Appeals later in this month. In West Virginia, a judge declined to throw out a case brought by GenBioPro. They are the maker of the generic version of mifepristone, the abortion pill. That generic, which accounts for more than half the market, would be rendered unapproved even under the compromise position of the Court of Appeals because it was approved after the 2016 cutoff period. Remember, the Court of Appeals said, We don’t want to cancel the approval, but we want to roll it back to the date when FDA started to loosen the restrictions on it. So, in theory, there would be no generic allowed, but that’s actually not even what the West Virginia lawsuit is about; it’s about challenging the state’s total abortion ban as violating the federal supremacy of the FDA over state laws. Joanne, that’s what sort of you were talking about now with contraceptives, too. And this is the big unanswered question: Can states basically overrule the FDA’s approval and the FDA’s approval for even an age limit?

Kenen: Well, I mean, I’m not saying they can, but I am saying that I don’t know where the question will come down. Go back to the regular birth control; I can certainly see conservative states trying to put age limits on it. And I don’t know how that’ll play out legally. But this is a different issue, and this is why the abortion pill lawsuits are not just about the abortion pill. They’re about drug safety and drug regulation in this country. The FDA is the agency we charge with deciding whether drugs are safe and good for human beings, and not the system of politicians and state legislators in 50 different states replacing their judgment. So obviously, it’s more complicated, because it’s abortion, but one of several bottom lines in this case is who gets to decide: the FDA or state legislature.

Rovner: And right: Do states get to overrule what the federal Food and Drug Administration says? Well, I —

Kenen: Remember, some states have had — you know, California’s had stricter regulations on several health things, you know, and that’s been allowed that you could have higher ceilings for various health — you know, carcinogenics and so forth. But they haven’t fundamentally challenged the authority of the FDA.

Rovner: Yet. Well, since confusion is our theme of the week, also this week a group of independent abortion clinics led by Whole Woman’s Health, which operates in several states, filed suit against the FDA, basically trying to add Virginia, Kansas, and Montana to the other 18 states that sued to force FDA to further reduce the agency’s current restrictions on mifepristone. A federal judge in Washington state ruled — the same day that Texas judge did that mifepristone should have its approval removed — judge in Washington said the drug should become even more easily available. In the real world, though, this is just sowing so much confusion that nobody knows what’s allowed and what isn’t, which I think is kind of the point for opponents, right? They just want to make everybody as confused as possible, if they can’t actually ban it.

Sanger-Katz: I think they actually want to ban it. I mean, I think that’s their primary goal. I’m sure there are some that will settle for confusion as a secondary outcome. I think just this whole mess of cases really highlights what a weird moment we are, where we’re having individual judges and individual jurisdictions making determinations about whether or not the FDA can or can’t approve the safety and efficacy of drugs. You know, as Joanne said, we’ve just had a system in this country since the foundation of the FDA where they are the scientific experts and they make determinations and those determinations affect drug availability and legal status around the country. And this is a very unusual situation where we’re seeing federal courts in different jurisdictions making their own judgments about what the FDA should do. And I think the Texas judge that struck down the approval of mifepristone, at least temporarily, has come in for a lot of criticism. But what the judge in Washington state did is sort of a flavor of the same thing. It’s telling the FDA, you know, how they should do their business. And it’s a weird thing.

Rovner: It is. Well, one last thing this week, since we’re talking about confusion, and the public is definitely confused, according to two different polls that are out this week — on the one hand, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that a full two-thirds of respondents say mifepristone, the abortion pill, should stay on the market, and more than half say they disagree with the Supreme Court’s overturn of Roe v. Wade, including 70% of independents and more than a third of Republicans. Yet, in focus groups in April, more than a third of independents couldn’t differentiate Democrats’ position on abortion from Republicans’. As reported by Vox, one participant said, quote, “I really haven’t basically heard anything about which party is leaning toward it and which one isn’t.” When pressed, she said, “If I had to guess, I would say Democrat would probably be against it and Republican would probably be for it.” Another participant said she thought that Joe Biden helped get the Supreme Court judges who overturned Roe. We really do live in a bubble, don’t we? I think that was sort of the most mind-blowing thing I’ve read since — all the months since Roe got overturned, that there are people who care about this issue who have no idea where anybody stands.

Sanger-Katz: I think it’s just a truth about our political system that there are a lot of Americans who are what the political scientists call low-information voters. These are people who are just not following the news very closely and not following politics very closely. And they may have a certain set of opinions about issues of the day, but I think it is a big challenge to get those people aware of where candidates stand on issues of concern to them and to get them activated. And it doesn’t really surprise me that independent voters are the ones who seem to be confused about where the parties are, because they’re probably the least plugged into politics generally. And so, for Democrats, it does seem like this lack of information is potentially an opportunity for them, because it seems like when you ask voters what they want on abortion, they want things that are more aligned with Democratic politicians’ preferences than Republicans’. And so it strikes me that perhaps some of those people in the focus group who didn’t know who stood for what, maybe those are gettable voters for the Democratic Party. But I think — you know, we’re about to go into a very heated campaign season, you know, as we go into the presidential primaries and then the general election in which there are going to be a lot of ads, a lot of news coverage. And, you know, I think abortion is very likely to be a prominent issue during the campaigns. And I think it is almost certainly going to be a major goal of the Biden presidential reelection campaign to try to make sure that these people know where Biden stands relative to abortion, because it is an issue that so many voters agree with him on.

Rovner: And it makes you see, I mean, there’s a lot of Republicans who are trying to sort of finesse this issue now and say, you know, “Oh, well, we’re going to restrict it, but we’re not going to ban it,” or, “We have all these exceptions” that are, of course, in practice, you can’t use. Obviously, these are the kinds of voters who might be attracted to that. So we will obviously see this as it goes on.

Kenen: But Julie, do you remember whether they were actually voters? Because I had the same reaction to you: like, of all the things to not be sure of, that one was pretty surprising. But we also know that in places like Kansas where, you know, where there are not that many Democrats, these referenda won. Voters have supported abortion rights in the 2022 elections and in these state referenda. So independents must be voting with the —

Rovner: I was going to say, I think if you’re doing —

Kenen: Something isn’t totally — something is not totally adding up there.

Rovner: If you’re doing a focus group for politics, one presumes that you get voters. So, I mean, I think that was — that was the point of the focus group. But yeah, it’s —

Kenen: Or people who say they’re voters.

Rovner: Or people who say they’re voters. That is a different issue. All right. Well, something not that confusing: Now it’s time for our extra credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Tami, why don’t you go first this week?

Luhby: OK. Well, I picked a story from CNN by my colleagues on the health team. It’s titled “Because of Florida Abortion Laws, She Carried Her Baby to Term Knowing He Would Die,” by Elizabeth Cohen, Carma Hassan, and Amanda Musa. And I have to say that when I first read this story, I couldn’t get through it, because it was so upsetting. And then when I selected it as an extra credit, I had to read it in full. But it’s about a family in Florida whose son was born without kidneys. They knew that he was going to die. And it’s about all of the effects from everything from, you know, the mother, Deborah Dorbert, on her physically and emotionally. But it also, you know, talked about the family and, you know, the effect on the marriage and the effect — which was just so upsetting — was on the 4-year-old son, who became very attached. I don’t think they even knew — well, it wasn’t a girl. It was actually a boy. But for some reason, this older son felt that it was a girl and just kept saying, like, “My sister is going to do X, Y, Z.” And, you know, how did the parents break it to him? Because he saw that his mother was, you know, pregnant and getting larger. And, you know, it was just figuring out how to break it to him that no baby was coming home. So the details are heart-wrenching. The quotes in the third paragraph: “‘He gasped for air a couple of times when I held him,’ said Dorbert. ‘I watched my child take his first breath, and I held him as he took his last one.’” So, you know, these are things that, you know — and we just talked about how the states are arguing over what exceptions there should be, if any, you know, and these are the stories that the legislators don’t think about when they pass these laws.

Rovner: I think I said this before because we’ve had a story like this almost every week. This one was particularly wrenching. But I think the one thing that all these stories are doing is helping people understand, particularly men, that there are complications in pregnancy, that they’re not that rare, that, you know, that they sort of throw off and say, “Oh, well, that’s, you know, one in a million,” — It’s not one in a million. It’s like one in a thousand. That’s a lot of people. So I mean, that’s why there are a lot of these stories, because there are a lot of pregnancies that don’t go as expected.

Luhby: Right. And it really shows the chilling effect on doctors because, you know, you would say, “Oh, it’s simple: life of the mother or, you know, life of the fetus” or something like that. That seems pretty straightforward, but it isn’t. And these doctors, in cases where, you know, other cases where it is the life of the mother, which seem, again, very straightforward, the doctors are not willing to do anything because they’re afraid.

Rovner: I know. Joanne.

Kenen: This is a story from The Baltimore Banner that has a very long title. It’s by Hallie Miller and Adam Willis, and it’s called “Baltimore Isn’t Accessible for People With Disabilities. Fixing It Would Cost Over $650 Million.” Baltimore is not that big a city. $650 million is a lot of curbs and barriers. And there’s also a lot of gun violence in Baltimore. If you drive around Baltimore, and I work there a few days a week, you see lots of people on walkers and scooters and wheelchairs because many of them are survivors of gun violence. And you see them struggling. And there were quotes from people saying they, you know, were afraid walking near the harbor that they would fall in because there wasn’t a path for them. It is not invisible, but we treat it like it’s invisible. And it’s been many years since the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed, and we still don’t have it right. It’s a — this one isn’t confusion like everything else we talked about today. I loved Margot’s phrase about confusion as a secondary outcome. I think you should write a novel with that title. But it’s — this isn’t confusion. This is just not doing the right thing for people who are — we’re just not protecting or valuing.

Rovner: And I’d say for whom there are laws that this should be happening. Margot.

Sanger-Katz: I had another story about abortion. This one was in The New Yorker, called “The Problem With Planned Parenthood,” by Eyal Press. The story sort of looked at Planned Parenthood, you know, which is kind of the largest abortion provider in the country. It’s — I mean, it’s really a network of providers. They have all these affiliates. They’re often seen as being more monolithic than perhaps they are. But this story argued that people who were operating independent abortion clinics, who do represent a lot of the abortion providers in the country as well, have felt that Planned Parenthood has been too cautious legally, too afraid of running afoul of state laws, and so that has led them to be very conservative and also too conservative from the perspective of business, and that there is a view that Planned Parenthood is not serving the role that it could be by expanding into areas where abortion is less available. I thought it was just interesting to hear these criticisms and hoped to understand that the community of abortion providers are, you know, they’re diverse and they have different perspectives on how abortion access should work and what kinds of services should be provided in different settings. And they also view each other as business competition in some cases. I mean, a lot of the complaints in this article had to do with Planned Parenthood opening clinics near to independent clinics and kind of taking away the business from them, making it harder for them to survive and operate. Anyway, I thought it was a very interesting window into these debates, and it did mesh with some of my reporting experience, particularly around the legal cautiousness. I did a story before the Dobbs decision came down from the Supreme Court where Planned Parenthood in several states had just stopped offering abortions even before the court had ruled, because they anticipated that the court would rule and they just didn’t want to make any mistake about running afoul of these laws such that, you know, women were denied care that was still legal in the days leading up to the Supreme Court decision.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a really good story. Well, my story is kind of tangentially about abortion. It’s from Slate, and it’s called “Not Every Man Will Be as Dumb as Marcus Silva,” by Moira Donegan and Mark Joseph Stern. And it’s about a case from Texas, of course, that we talked about a couple of weeks ago, where an ex-husband is suing two friends of his ex-wife for wrongful death, for helping her get an abortion. Well, now the two friends have filed a countersuit claiming that the ex-husband knew his wife was going to have an abortion beforehand because he found the pill in her purse and he put it back so that he could use the threat of a lawsuit to force her to stay with him. It feels like a soap opera, except it is happening in real life. And my first thought when I read this is that it’s going to make some great episode of “Dateline” or “20/20.” That is our show, as always.

Kenen: Or, not “The Bachelor.”

Rovner: Yeah, but not “The Bachelor.” That is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us too. Special thanks, as always, to our ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m still there. I’m at @jrovner. Joanne?

Kenen: @JoanneKenen.

Rovner: Tami.

Luhby: @Luhby.

Rovner: Margot.

Sanger-Katz: @sangerkatz.

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week, hopefully with a little less confusion. 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, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

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

Click to open the transcript

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

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’

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

Episode Number: 296

Published: May 4, 2023

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at KFF Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, May 4, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.

Joanne Kenen: Hey, everybody.

Rovner: Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Good morning.

Rovner: And Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Ollstein: Hello.

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Yeah, I do too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kenen: I think he had a stroke, right?

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

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

Rovner: —he was not all there —

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

Rovner: Yeah, that’s for sure.

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Right. He knows how to negotiate.

Kenen: It just didn’t work.

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

Kenen: Maybe they’ll come out holding hands.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ollstein: —right—

Rovner: —sort of balancing act going on.

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

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

Ollstein: Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Yeah, mine too.

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

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

Kenen: That’s a whole other —

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

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

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

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

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

Ollstein: —exactly—

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

Ollstein: Exactly. You can’t boostrap loneliness.

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Yeah, they do. I mean, Republicans are big on doing things at the community level. That’s the idea, is let’s have government at the lowest level possible. Well, this will be an interesting issue to watch and see if it catches on more with the public health community. All right. That is this week’s news. Now it is time for our extra credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at KFF Health News and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Rachel, why don’t you go first this week?

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

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

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

Rovner: Oh, I can’t wait. Alice.

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

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

Ollstein: Yeah.

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

Kenen: @JoanneKenen.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs: @rachelcohrs.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

Read Jessie's stories

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@Shefalil

Read Shefali's stories

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

Also this week, Rovner interviews Renuka Rayasam, who wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” feature, about a pregnant woman experiencing a dangerous complication who was asked to pay $15,000 upfront to see one of the few specialists who could help her. If you have an outrageous or exorbitant medical bill you want to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: The Nation’s “The Poison Pill in the Mifepristone Lawsuit That Could Trigger a National Abortion Ban,” by Amy Littlefield.

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

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

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Dancing Under the Debt Ceiling

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’

Episode Title: Dancing Under the Debt Ceiling

Episode Number: 295

Published: April 27, 2023

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

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

Jessie Hellmann: Good morning.

Rovner: Sarah Karlin-Smith, the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Shefali Luthra: Hello.

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Yeah, the family planning program.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: And how much money was it?

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

Rovner: And the outcome was medically good, right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rayasam: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karlin-Smith: I’m @SarahKarlin.

Rovner: Jessie.

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann.

Rovner: Shefali.

Luthra: @Shefalil.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Mary Agnes Carey
KFF Health News

@maryagnescarey

Read Mary Agnes' stories

Mary Agnes Carey, Partnerships Editor and Senior Correspondent, oversees placement of KFF Health News content in publications nationwide. She has covered health care policy and politics for KFF Health News, CQ, Dow Jones Newswires, and other news outlets.

Supreme Court justices could act at any moment on access to the abortion pill mifepristone. Beyond reproductive health, their ruling could carry significant implications for states’ rights and FDA independence and integrity. For now, though, observers are unsure what the court will do — or what exactly prompted justices to again delay their decision this week.

At the Capitol, lawmakers grumbled, scoffed, and bickered this week as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy revealed the Republican proposal to cut government spending. The package would be dead-on-arrival in the Democratic-controlled Senate. But of note is the pushback from within McCarthy’s own caucus, with some hard-right conservatives pressing to go further by demanding the repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.

And President Joe Biden pursued new efforts to grant legal status to young immigrants living in the country illegally who were brought here as children, sometimes called “Dreamers,” as his administration announced a plan to grant them access to government-funded health coverage.

This week’s panelists are Mary Agnes Carey of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Supreme Court extended its stay on the use of mifepristone through Friday, giving justices longer to act on a major, complicated case with nationwide implications for reproductive health. It is unclear what the court will do, though there are several actions it could take — including sending the case back to the lower courts or again extending the stay and buying justices even more time to come to agreement or pen dissents.
• GenBioPro, which produces the generic version of mifepristone, sued the FDA on Wednesday, attempting to preserve access to the drug. About two-thirds of the mifepristone currently used in the United States is generic.
• In congressional news, House Speaker McCarthy released what is effectively Republicans’ opening offer in the fight over raising the debt ceiling. The package includes GOP health priorities that would not garner needed support in the Senate, like work requirements for Medicaid and the clawback of unspent covid-19 pandemic funds.
• While health costs are high across government programs, Medicaid takes the big hit in the Republican proposal to cut federal spending. Republicans have embraced work requirements for government assistance since at least the 1980s, yet in Arkansas — a state that implemented work rules for Medicaid — it has proved challenging to verify that enrollees are meeting those requirements.
• The Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over much of federal health spending, revealed a package this week to tackle drug pricing. While the proposal is in the early stages, it seeks to incorporate bipartisan measures touching pharmacy benefit managers, insulin users, and more.
• And on the coverage front, the Biden administration announced that immigrant kids brought to the United States who remain here under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program will be able to apply for Medicaid and Affordable Care Act coverage. This eligibility expansion comes as states prepare to disenroll those who no longer qualify for Medicaid as the public health emergency’s coverage protections expire. Expect a fight from some states as they resist being forced to cover insurance for individuals living in the U.S. without legal permission.

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

Mary Agnes Carey: The New York Times’ “A Beauty Treatment Promised to Zap Fat. For Some, It Brought Disfigurement,” by Anna Kodé

Joanne Kenen: The New York Times’ “My Transplanted Heart and I Will Die Soon,” by Amy Silverstein

Sandhya Raman: ABC News’ “Puerto Rico’s Water Supply Is Being Depleted, Contaminated by Manufacturing Industry on the Island, Experts Say,” by Jessie DiMartino, Lilia Geho, and Julia Jacobo

Rachel Cohrs: The Wall Street Journal’s “‘I Hate You, Kathie Lee Gifford!’ Ozempic Users Report Bizarre Dreams,” by Peter Loftus

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Will They or Won’t They (Block the Abortion Pill)?

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Will They or Won’t They (Block the Abortion Pill)?Episode Number: 294Published: April 20, 2023

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

Mary Agnes Carey: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Mary Agnes Carey, partnerships editor for KFF Health News. I’m filling in this week for Julie Rovner, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, April 20, at 10 a.m. Eastern. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Joining us today by video conference are Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Carey: Rachel Cohrs of Stat.

Cohrs: Morning, everyone.

Carey: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Raman: Good morning.

Carey: Let’s start with the current court action on mifepristone. The Supreme Court was scheduled to rule yesterday on a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that rolled back FDA action since 2016, allowing patients to get mifepristone through the mail, authorizing prescriptions by medical professionals other than doctors, and approving the drug’s use up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy instead of seven. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito Jr, who’d previously set Wednesday as the deadline for the court to act, extended that stay until Friday, and the justices could certainly act before they choose to —hopefully not while we’re taping. But I wanted to get everyone’s thoughts on why do you think the court didn’t act yesterday? Joanne, can I start with you?

Kenen: I mean, presumably they’re still hashing it out. There’re probably two or three judges who are still thinking about it or discussing it with their colleagues, or colleagues who want to think they can persuade them to their side. I mean, there’s something internal. On the other hand, I mean, they didn’t originally give themselves a lot of time to consider a complicated and historic case. We know there’s an anti-abortion majority. We know they’re not crazy about medical abortions any more than they are about surgical abortions. But this has large implications about states’ rights and about the sort of integrity of the FDA. So they may just wanted to sleep on it. They’re human, but the two sides are battling for two or three in the middle.

Carey: So what does this signal about how they might rule? I mean, to your point about the split, the battle, what are the options? What do you — Sandhya, what do you think about what they might —

Kenen: Well, if it was slam dunk, we’d have had it.

Carey: That is true. That is true. It is not a slam dunk.

Raman: And everyone that I have talked to in the last few weeks on this is just that there are so many different options, different permutations, that it’s difficult even for people that are experts on FDA policy, like expert lawyers, experts on abortion policy, to just kind of like predict the nuances. You know, they could let the stay expire. They could send it back to the 5th Circuit. They could decide to hold arguments and let it expire or not expire. They could decide something different than the 5th Circuit. You know, there’s so many different ways that things could happen that I think it makes it difficult. And then yesterday, the other manufacturer of mifepristone, GenBioPro, also filed suit against the FDA. So now we have, since Dobbs, like five different lawsuits related to mifepristone and three of them, post-Dobbs, are related to the FDA in particular. And I think it just gets very, very complicated to make a decision, even if ideologically some people might align with one way versus the other, given all of these different permutations and that we still have that Washington case that is attacking another part of this. So it’s just complicated to get people to do something. And the fact that this case has been moving so, so quickly.

Carey: Could we be in the same place on Friday? Could we get another stay? Could the justices certainly ask for more time, and are there any thoughts about the probability of that actually happening? Rachel, what are your thoughts?

Cohrs: I think they can do what they want.

Carey: That’s true.

Cohrs: They gave themselves time once more, and I think obviously there’s a benefit to having some certainty and predictability for people, for providers, but certainly they could stay again.

Carey: So, Sandhya, you just mentioned the Washington state case. So while this Texas ruling is before the Supreme Court, a federal district judge in Washington state issued a ruling in a separate case that instructed the FDA to not alter the current availability of the drug in 17 states and the District of Columbia. And as you just mentioned, a manufacturer of the generic version of the drug — the company’s name is GenBioPro; they make the generic version of mifepristone — they’re arguing that if the FDA implements a court order suspending approval of the drug, the agency would deprive the company of its rights to market the drug without due process of law. And as I understand, this company is a major manufacturer of the generic version of the drug, right? So let’s talk a bit more about this confusion of these split rulings. I mean, what is the public to make of it? What’s the reaction with facilities that are providing this medication or doctors who want to prescribe it or just the general public? The person who might be interested in this situation is very confused. I mean, talk a little bit about how people sort through it and what this means for them.

Raman: So the suit that was filed yesterday about the generic, they make two-thirds of the mifepristone that is used in the U.S. So if they were unable to be manufacturing theirs based on a ruling that only allowed the name-brand version of the drug, that’s a huge percentage of the market that is gone, and more than half of abortions are done through medication abortion. So that’s one thorn in it. And I think that another is that we have all of these states that have been stockpiling the drugs — several that have been, you know, in case they don’t know what is happening with the ruling. Washington is one of them. And there’s still not clarity depending on what happens with these cases of, you know, will they be able to use what that they have stockpiled? And then we have other states like New York and I think California that have been stockpiling misoprostol as another way to — in case there’s a court ruling that doesn’t go in their favor — to just give patients in their states access to medication abortion. I think that there are so many different permutations that it’s very difficult for even folks that are confident that the rule may go a different way to know what to predict, just because we’re in such uncertain territory, from all of the different former FDA officials that have said, “You know, this is a very different situation. We don’t even know, after decades of experience at the FDA, like, how this would play out, what it would mean, whether we’d have to pull everything off the market.” How it would play out, it’s just a lot of unknown territory given all of the different things going on.

Kenen: Well, also, whatever they do now isn’t necessarily the end of the story, right? I mean, if the court issues a stay, it will still go through the courts and it presumably ends up at the Supreme Court again. If they issue a stay pending full hearing of the case, it’ll be going on for months more. But either they issue a stay saying the 5th Circuit ruling, which did not totally — the lower federal court banned the use of the pill; the appeals court limited it to seven weeks instead of the FDA has ruled it’s for 10 weeks. So if they uphold the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, there would still be use, but it would be limited. If they put a stay saying, “Yes, it can stay legal in the states that allow it for now,” then it would still be legal in those states but we’d still be back discussing what is the Supreme Court going to do a couple of months from now.

Carey: And how — where is the drug industry on this? I mean, this would have sweeping ramifications.

Kenen: They’re horrified. One of you might know the number — was it like 250 companies signed the brief that you’re going to have a court decide what drug is safe and what drug is not safe, rather than the FDA? I mean, the pharmaceutical company fights with the FDA all the time, but they need the FDA and they know they need the FDA and they admit they need the FDA. You know, you have one voice in this country saying a drug is safe or a drug is not safe or a drug is safe under the following conditions.

Raman: There have been hundreds of the drug companies that have spoken out against it, and PhRMA [Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America] more recently also finally came out against it. It’s been pretty uniform in a way that I have not really seen in the past where there have been, you know, the drug companies, the various people that have been regulators, the folks that are in favor of abortion rights, then just advocates — and just very unified in this response.

Carey: Rachel, what is the impact of the drug industry’s weighing in in this manner? How could that shape the decision? Was there anything surprising in how they worked together on this? I know you’ve done some reporting on this area.

Cohrs: Yes. Yeah. So I think certainly them actually filing briefs with the court will kind of help drive home the ramifications of this, just on a much larger scale. I mean, we’re not just talking about abortion now. We’re talking about any medication that could be at all controversial. You know, we’re talking PrEP for HIV. You know, there are so many areas where companies genuinely are concerned about lawsuits and about judges who aren’t experts. So I think this uniform voice will drive home the larger impacts here beyond this one issue. And also, I think, the drug industry has significant resources to invest. And I think, it took a little while, but the trade groups PhRMA and BIO [Biotechnology Innovation Organization] have said that they are willing to invest, and they haven’t made any specific commitments, but certainly I think down the line there could be legal challenges. And now that they have put themselves out there, they certainly are a significant player in the space, with resources.

Raman: The drug industry is also a huge player in, you know, donating to various campaigns and lobbying on the Hill. And it’s definitely going to be — put increasingly different folks in a tight spot if they are receiving a lot of backing from the pharmaceutical industry and if they’ve spoken out in favor of restricting the drug. And it’ll be interesting to see kind of as it goes on what happens there with some of these folks.

Carey: Sure. Well that’s a perfect segue way because we have lawmakers on Capitol Hill are also weighing in on this. About 150 Republicans are urging the Supreme Court to uphold the 5th Circuit’s ruling, while more than 250 Democrats have urged the court to not prevent access to mifepristone. Are Republicans taking a political risk here speaking out? Because I know it’s been talked about on the podcast before, about the abortion rights opponents have some splits on how far to go on some of these restrictions on abortion. You know, Republicans didn’t really seem eager to engage when the decision came out, but now they are. What does that mean? What do you make of it?

Raman: We’ve had that delay first that, you know, a lot of Republicans did not even comment on the case, which was kind of interesting, given that, you know, after a lot of these decisions, we see a lot from both sides kind of weighing in. And I think when you look at some of these briefs, they say a lot of the similar talking points as before, which is something that you can kind of look to. But I mean, the conversation is still moving, even on the Hill. Yesterday, Robert Califf from the FDA was facing questions about mifepristone from different Republicans, from Cindy Hyde-Smith, who had agreed with the lower court decision, from Susan Collins, who was kind of against the decision as one of the Republicans who generally supports abortion rights. And I think it’ll be very interesting if this gets taken up by a committee that has jurisdiction over the FDA, which we have not really seen a commitment to. Energy and Commerce [Committee] Democrats have asked for something on this to come up. But, you know, under Republican leadership, I don’t know that that would necessarily happen. The only committee that is really committed to looking at this issue has been, like, Senate Judiciary, which with Democratic control is going to look a different way. And they don’t really have the jurisdiction over FDA in the same way as some of the other committees do. So I think that’ll be interesting to look at if that changes.

Kenen: There is a divide in the Republican Party about how far to go. I mean, some are for rape and incest exceptions, some are not. Some are for six weeks, some are for 15 weeks, some are for zero weeks. This is reflecting those divisions. It also depends on the individual lawmaker’s district. You know, if you come from an extremely conservative district and you are an anti-abortion absolutist, then you’re going to speak out on this. But we’ve noted they don’t really want to antagonize pharma either. So you’ve seen, I guess it’s 150ish — you haven’t seen all of them. It’s a complicated issue for some of them, given the competing interests, you know. Is abolishing all abortions in the United States of America your top goal? In which case you’re going to want to support the lower court. If you have a more nuanced view, where you’re worried about precedent for overriding the FDA, you have competing — I mean, there are very few abortion rights Republicans, but they don’t all want to draw the line in the same place.

Carey: So while we’re on the subject of Capitol Hill, let’s talk about the debt ceiling. We have a little bit of action there this week. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy unveiled his plan to raise the debt ceiling. McCarthy and many Republicans have said they don’t want to raise the debt ceiling without spending cuts. President Biden and many Democrats are pushing for a clean debt ceiling increase. So among its provisions, Speaker McCarthy’s plan would cut federal spending by roughly $130 billion, and that would take spending back to fiscal 2022 levels. Health-related provisions include new work requirements for Medicaid and food stamp recipients, and the package would also claw back unspent covid aid funds. And there’s a bit of a twist on the work requirement proposals of the past: States could opt to keep those that don’t comply with the work rules covered under Medicaid, keep them on the rolls. But if they do, the state would bear the full cost of that coverage and forgo the federal money for those enrollees, right? The proposal also requires states to make use of existing resources like payroll databases, state health and human service agencies, to verify compliance with a work rule when possible. There’s a lot to unpack here. It’s pretty clear that, I mean, House Democrats aren’t going to vote for this. Does the speaker even have enough votes in his own caucus to pass it? I think he can only lose like four.

Kenen: TBD. But I don’t think the conventional wisdom is that he has the votes. You know, it’s a starting offer, but they can change, you know, has to go Rules [Committee]. They’ll change — you know, they could change things.

Carey: It is a starting offer. But your vote is next week and it’s Thursday. OK. Rachel, what’s your take on this?

Cohrs: Yeah, I think it was a bit of a roller coaster this week, as some members of the Freedom Caucus were demanding wholesale repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act around midweek, and they certainly backed off from that, especially the health care portion. So I think that is worth noting, at least right now. Again, unclear if he has the votes, or if the speaker has the votes, and then obviously Senate Democrats aren’t going to go for it and President Biden isn’t going to go for this. So I think, like Joanne said, it is kind of an opening offer here. And again, there isn’t a lot on Medicare in here. So I think we just, you know, finally, after so much rhetoric and so much back-and-forth, have some sort of tangible starting point from Republicans here, which is significant.

Kenen: But, you know, as soon as they made that pledge that we’re not going to touch Medicare, meaning traditional Medicare actually, and we’re not going to touch Social Security, we all knew that, Oh, that means that it’s all going to go to Medicaid. So this is a big Medicaid hit. And work rules have been something the Republicans have embraced at least since the Reagan era, maybe even before, but certainly since the 1980s. A few states tried them or at least said they were going to impose them under the Obama administration. At that point, the administration didn’t approve them and the courts didn’t uphold them. But we have a different court now. So I think this court would uphold; that’s likely. But this is not acceptable for Democrats, nor is it meant to be.

Raman: And when we had the various states propose these and in some cases implement them during the Trump administration, every single one of them was struck down by the court once, sometimes twice. You know, we had Arkansas, we had New Hampshire, we had Kentucky, we had Michigan. Every single time the judge at hand was, you know, “This is going against the function of Medicaid,” which — historically we’ve had work requirements in some of the other programs, but the way the Medicaid statute is written, it has been difficult to find a way to keep those in place. So if they were able to get that past, I mean, even the House, which seems like is a, is a question mark, I mean — whatever could get through would absolutely face court battles from some of the same folks that challenged them during the Trump administration.

Kenen: But I think the only one that actually went into effect was Arkansas. And in addition to it being thrown out by a court, it also just didn’t work. The mechanism didn’t work. It became really hard for people. The verification that you’re working, which this proposal actually addresses, that Mary Agnes just alluded to that, the verification was extraordinarily cumbersome. I mean, you had like lots of poor people in Arkansas — and rural Arkansas don’t have access to Internet — and you only had a few hours a day where you could use the portal and you have to leave work to go to the local library to prove that you were working. I mean, it was just — forget the ideology of it — the mechanics didn’t work, and people were thrown off even though they were compliant. And but this [is] just like a deep philosophical divide between the two parties, and they have compromised, and back in the Clinton years they compromised on welfare, what’s now called TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families]. There’s work requirements for SNAP, for what we used to call food stamps. But Medicaid has been a red line for Democrats, that this is an entitlement based on health; it’s not like you deserve — some people deserve it and some people don’t. It’s been a philosophical, ideological, you know, something that Democrats feel very strongly about.

Cohrs: Oh, I just want to jump in on the covid money as well — much smaller deal, fewer impacts on patients — but it has been kind of interesting and over the last couple of weeks that the Biden administration has rolled out some new programs that cost quite a bit of money, as there’s this horizon, this call for Congress to claw back unspent covid funds. I mean, they’re spending $5 billion now on developing vaccines and therapeutics, $1 billion on vaccine access, when they said they didn’t have any money. So it’s just kind of interesting that, you know, when these funds are committed to a program legally, then Congress can’t claw them back. So I’m curious to see what else we’ll see as these negotiations solidify.

Carey: All right. We’ll keep our eye on it. And I want to just check in briefly on the Senate side. I know we’ve discussed these issues on the podcast before. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has been working on legislation focused on drug prices and pharmacy benefit managers. This morning we have a framework introduced from the Senate Finance Committee. It’s with Sen. Wyden, the chair from Oregon, who’s a Democrat, and Sen. Mike Crapo, Republican from Idaho, that also seeks to address PBMs in the prescription drug supply chain. We also have the moving, or maybe not moving, but introduce legislation, anything new there on insulin prices with Sen. Warnock and Sen. Kennedy to cap the out-of-pocket price at $35. Any movements there in the Senate, any insight you could offer?

Cohrs: On the Senate Finance [Committee] side, that is a very significant development, that they’ve decided to get in on the fun this week of putting together a package, just because their committees do have jurisdiction over so much federal spending. And Sen. Wyden has been involved in this issue. He’s put out — I found a package of bills from 2019, and, you know, he’s been on this issue a long time. So I think his team has proven they can craft big-picture, very impactful policy with the Inflation Reduction Act. So I think that’s certainly something to watch with that much federal spending on the line. And on insulin, you know, Sen. Schumer this week has committed to have some sort of insulin pricing provision in whatever package might come together — it’s still pretty amorphous — but it’s unclear what that’s going to look like. There is another proposal from Sen. Collins and Sen. Shaheen, two much more senior members of the caucus, and that mechanism works differently. For patients, it would look pretty similar. But on the back end, for insurers, for drugmakers, both of those programs would work differently. So they haven’t sorted that out yet. HELP hasn’t even picked a date for their hearing and formally announced it yet. So we are in early stages, but there’s certainly a lot swirling around.

Carey: Absolutely. And we’ll keep our eye on all of that as well. So I’d like to also chat a little bit about some ACA developments that happened this week. President Biden recently announced that hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children will be able to apply for Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance exchanges. This allows participants in the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, also known as DACA, to access government-funded health insurance programs. You can expect pushback from conservative leaders of states that have been reluctant to expand Medicaid, possibly also pushback from Republican members of the Hill on this provision. And then, in other ACA news, the administration has finalized new rules that are aimed at making it easier for consumers to sign up for ACA plans, in particular those who are losing their coverage through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, also known as CMS, will also give state marketplaces the option to hold a special enrollment period for people who lose their Medicaid or CHIP coverage. What could this possibly mean for enrollment in the program, right, to making it easier for DACA participants to enroll in the ACA or people losing their coverage through CHIP or Medicaid? I think it’s about 16 million people now in the program. Does this build more support for it? Are Republicans going to engage against it? Do they think that’s simply a losing battle because they’ve never agreed on an alternative?

Raman: I mean, right now, we’ve had historic levels of people in Medicaid and CHIP just because states have been unable to unenroll them from coverage during the public health emergency for covid. And now that states are starting to recheck their rolls and see who’s still eligible, who’s not eligible, we’ve been expecting just, you know, a big drop in different people that would be either getting uninsured or maybe moving to a different type of plan with a private or the exchanges. And I think it’s been something that, you know, states and the federal government have been working on for the entire time of just, you know, different ways to make sure that that drop-off in the number of uninsured folks doesn’t skyrocket as states are going through this process. And so I think the timing is important in that, you know, you’re trying to counteract the drop. And HHS [the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] has been touting, you know, the high levels of uptake in the ACA and just like the low uninsured rate and this has been something they’ve just kind of been pushing, you know, month after month. This has been something that has been like a big achievement for them. And so now really like push comes to shove to say that, you know, it doesn’t drop off dramatically if you want to continue touting some of these achievements and making sure that people don’t drop off just because the emergency is ending and that guaranteed coverage isn’t there.

Kenen: So there are multiple issues in the question that are exposed, the DACA, which —

Carey: Of course it can’t be just one question I have to ask four at once.

Kenen: The DACA, which is also known as the Dreamers, Biden is trying to cover them. Democrats have been trying to give them legal status and got nowhere. In fact, they’re probably further away from that than they were five or six years ago. But to get them health coverage is something the Democrats — it’s like the least they can do to this population. But I can’t imagine there’s not going to be a political and/or a legal fight from the states who are going to have to pay for their share of it, right? I mean, Medicaid is a state-federal joint expenditure, and the states that don’t want to cover these people will well resist or sue. Or, I mean, everything ends up in court; I would imagine this will, too, or baked into the debt ceiling — you know, one more thing to fight about with the debt ceiling. So that’s one issue. I mean, the other issue is this unwinding of this huge Medicaid population. Most of these people are going to be eligible for some kind of coverage. Some of them are still going to be eligible for Medicaid. Some of them are going to be eligible for very good deals for sort of low-income working people on the ACA. And some have jobs that they can get insured through — theirs or a partner or a family member. But really, the only ones who are ineligible for anything would be those in the remaining Medicaid gap states. But that’s like theoretically, if we did everything right, the only people that would be ineligible are the Medicaid gap population, which is now down to about 10 states, assuming North Carolina, you know, finalizes their approval or, you know, enacts their expansion. But like, that’s the perfect world, and we don’t live in a perfect world. I mean, some of these people are going to get lost in the shuffle. And in fact, maybe several million; their estimates are like maybe 6 million, you know, no one knows. But, you know, our health care system is complicated. You know, getting a letter in the mail saying, you know, “Sayonara, Medicaid,” is not all of them will know how to negotiate new coverage even when they’re eligible, and we’re going to have to do a really good job of helping them. And that has to be from the federal government, from the state governments, from the health system itself, from advocates, from Congress. You know, everyone’s going to have to pitch in to get these people what they’re eligible for. And I don’t see that as an overnight success story. I think that there are people who should be covered and can be covered who won’t be covered. Eventually we’ll probably catch up and most of them enrolled. But I think that some of them have periods of uninsurance.

Carey: It’s absolutely a major undertaking. I know we’ll all be watching closely. OK, that’s the news for this week. Now it’s time for our extra credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week and think you should read it too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We’ll post the links on our podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device.

Kenen: I actually want to read the first sentence of this piece. This is a guest essay in The New York Times by Amy Silverstein. She’s a heart transplant recipient. She’s, I guess, about 60 now, and she’s about to die, not because her heart, her transplanted heart is failing — she writes about how she kept that in pristine condition — but because she’s got cancer. And it’s called “My Transplanted Heart and I Will Die Soon,” and it begins, “Today, I will explain to my healthy transplanted heart why, in what may be a matter of days or weeks at best, she — well, we — will die.” And in addition to being just a heart-tugger, I did not know a lot of what she explores about transplant medicine, that we think of transplants as medical miracles — and they are; you know, she had like an extra 35 years of life — but they’re also, transplant medicine itself hasn’t really, according to what she writes, transplant medicine itself — the drugs, the care they get, these heavy-duty drugs haven’t improved in 40 years. While she has a healthy heart, she has metastatic lung cancer because of these drugs. The medical care around transplant can be quite dangerous. And I knew nothing about that, and I’ve covered health for a long time. So it’s a tragic story and it’s also a scientific failure or a medical system or a medical research failure story that I hope a lot of people who have the power to change it read.

Carey: Sandhya, what’s your extra credit?

Raman: So my extra credit is from ABC News. It’s called “Puerto Rico’s Water Supply Is Being Depleted, Contaminated by Manufacturing Industry on the Island, Experts Say.” It’s a triple byline from Jessie DiMartino, Lilia Geho, and Julia Jacobo. And I thought their story was really interesting because it looks at the effects of the manufacturing industry on the water supply in Puerto Rico. The manufacturing there is, in Puerto Rico, is really high because there used to be a tax incentive that’s now lapsed to create a huge boom in manufacturing in the ’60s and ’70s. And kind of looking at the impacts of that, and over time and to the environment, and pharma manufacturing in particular, is 65% of what has been the industrial groundwater withdrawals. So in areas that rely heavily on groundwater on an island, this is felt especially hard. And so they go through a lot of the implications of some of that and how the manufacturing affects it, especially in an island with a finite water supply.

Carey: Rachel.

Cohrs: Mine is, the headline is, “‘I Hate You, Kathie Lee Gifford!’ Ozempic Users Report Bizarre Dreams,” in The Wall Street Journal and by Peter Loftus. Our newsroom has been covering the weight loss drug explosion this year, and I think this story was just so colorful and just a great example of reporting on the side effects that emerge when so many people are interested or want to take a drug. And I think there is certainly a public service to people understanding what they’re getting into and just hearing from all sorts of people, because certainly there are agencies who are supposed to be doing that. But I think there’s also just a lot of buzz that’s fascinating. The writing was just so rich and bizarre. And yeah, it was a great read and a great illustration on it, too.

Carey: Well, speaking of weight loss and getting fat out of our bodies, my story is from The New York Times, called “A Beauty Treatment Promised to Zap Fat. For Some, It Brought Disfigurement,” by Anna Kodé, and I hope I’m pronouncing your name correctly. You might have heard or seen all these ads about the treatment called CoolSculpting. It uses a device on a targeted part of the body to freeze fat cells. Patients typically undergo multiple treatments in the same area, and in successful cases, the cells die and the body absorbs them. “But for some people,” Anna writes, “the procedure results in severe disfigurement. The fat can grow, harden and lodge in the body, sometimes even taking on the shape of the device’s applicator.” The manufacturer says this is a rare side effect, but a Times investigation that drew on internal documents, lawsuits, medical studies, and interviews indicates the risk to patients may be considerably higher. So that’s our show. As always, 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. Special thanks, as always, to our ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. And as always, you can email us with your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me @maryagnescarey. Rachel?

Cohrs: @rachelcohrs.

Carey: Joanne?

Kenen: @JoanneKenen.

Carey: Sandhya.

Raman: @SandhyaWrites.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

In 2014, Lisa French had spinal surgery. Before the operation, she was told she would have to pay $1,337 in out-of-pocket costs and that her insurance would cover the rest. However, the hospital ended up sending French a bill for $229,000. When she didn’t pay, it sued her.

The case went all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court. In this episode of “An Arm and a Leg,” host Dan Weissmann finds out how the court ruled and how the decision is reshaping the fine print on hospital bills in ways that could cost patients a lot of money.

Dan Weissmann

@danweissmann

Host and producer of "An Arm and a Leg." Previously, Dan was a staff reporter for Marketplace and Chicago's WBEZ. His work also appears on All Things Considered, Marketplace, the BBC, 99 Percent Invisible, and Reveal, from the Center for Investigative Reporting.

Credits

Emily Pisacreta
Producer

Adam Raymonda
Audio Wizard

Afi Yellow-Duke
Editor

Click to open the Transcript

Transcript: A $229,000 Medical Bill Goes to Court

Note: “An Arm and a Leg” uses speech-recognition software to generate transcripts, which may contain errors. Please use the transcript as a tool but check the corresponding audio before quoting the podcast.

Dan: Hey there–

Lisa French was a clerk for a trucking company in Denver. She’d been in a car crash, and her doctor told her that to keep her spine stable, she ought to get surgery.

She asked the folks at the hospital what it was gonna cost her, out of pocket. They ran her insurance and told her: Your end is going to be one thousand, three hundred thirty-six dollars, and ninety cents.

She said, thanks.

Then, she and her husband sat down at their kitchen table and talked it over: They had a rainy-day fund. A thousand dollars they’d socked away, they kept it at home, in cash. Were they ready to spend it all for this? 

They decided they were, and Lisa went to the hospital with a thousand dollars cash. 

She had the surgery, it went fine. The hospital had been expecting about 55 thousand dollars from Lisa’s insurance. They actually got more like 74 thousand.

But they decided that wasn’t enough. They decided they wanted their full sticker price: 303 thousand dollars. So they billed Lisa French for the rest: 229 thousand dollars.

And when they didn’t get it, they sued her.

Lisa French had her surgery in 2014. The court case finally got resolved last year, in 2022, by the Colorado Supreme Court.

If you’ve been listening to this show for a while, you probably remember: We have gotten VERY interested in understanding, when we get a wild medical bill, what legal rights do we have? How can we use those rights to fight back? Even on a small scale, like in small claims court? 

And even though Lisa French’s case is a LONG way from small claims court, it has a LOT to teach us about these questions.

This is An Arm and a Leg, a show about why health care costs so freaking much, and what we can maybe do about it. I’m Dan Weissmann. I’m a reporter, and I like a challenge. So our job on this show is to take one of the most enraging, terrifying, depressing parts of American life, and bring you something entertaining, empowering, and useful.

And I should say upfront: We won’t be hearing from Lisa French directly.

Her case made a lot of headlines– in 2018, when a jury heard it, in YEAR when an appeals court overturned the trial court, and last year when the state supreme court made its ruling.

Not in the kind of detail that we’re gonna go into, but come on: Who can resist the headline?

Male Anchor: Well, tonight we have a story of David versus Goliath. David being a woman who needed spinal surgery in 2014 Goliath, the hospital that charged her more than $200,000 to do it.

Dan: So over the years, a lot of reporters wanted a sound bite from Lisa French. Her attorney used to let her know when there was an inquiry, and she’d say yes or no.

Eventually, she told her lawyer: Don’t even tell me when they call anymore. I just want to live my life.

Fair enough.

So here’s who we’ve got.

Ted Lavender: I’m Ted Lavender. I’m an attorney in Atlanta, Georgia. I’ve been practicing law for 26 years,

Dan: And he spent several of those years representing Lisa French.

It’s probably worth answering one question up front: If Lisa French had to empty her family’s rainy-day fund to pay the hospital a thousand bucks, who’s paying the lawyer from Atlanta?

The insurance from her job. Which had played a role in starting the whole mess.

Ted Lavender: the company that she worked for had a health benefits plan that was slightly different than what you might call run of the mill health insurance.

Dan: It worked this way: They weren’t in-network with any hospitals. Instead, they’d just take whatever bill any hospital sent, make their own evaluation of what a fair price would be, and send the hospital a check.

It’s a somewhat unusual model– one survey says about 2 percent of employers use a plan like this– but Ted Lavender says it often works.

Ted Lavender: a very large percentage of the time , the hospital would accept the check and no one would hear anything more from the hospital, which in legal parlance would mean acceptance

Dan: And as a backstop, in case there was any trouble, the health plan would send a lawyer. That’s Ted.

And here’s what happened that led to all the trouble in Lisa French’s case: Whoever ran her insurance card at the hospital, they didn’t read it very carefully.

If they had, they would’ve seen a little logo under the insurance-company name that said, “provider only” — that is: This plan only has doctors and nurses and other PROVIDERS in network.

With hospitals, there’s no network, no “in-network rate.” We’ll just send a check for what we think is right.

The same health-benefits company has a different plan, one that does have a hospital network. You know how it is. Insurance companies, a million different plans, every one its own snowflake.

The hospital mistook Lisa French’s snowflake for another one, and that’s how they came up with that estimate.

Ted Lavender: based on their calculation, they expected to collect a total of

$56,000, the 1,336 from Ms. French and the remainder from her health plan.

Dan: And they presumably would’ve been happy with 56 thousand. But they got more. They got about 75 thousand dollars.

But once they got it, they wised up to the mistake they had made about Lisa French’s insurance. They had no agreement with the insurance plan to accept 56 thousand.

So, they decided: There’s no reason for us not to charge our full sticker price here.Three hundred and three thousand dollars.

So Lisa French had been expecting a bill for three hundred thirty-six dollars and ninety cents. That’s the difference between what she’d been quoted and the thousand dollars she’d paid in advance. But the bill she got wasn’t what she expected.

Ted Lavender: it turned out to be a whopper of a bill. We ended up with an itemized bill that showed every line item for every charge that totaled this

$303,000

And then at the bottom was, you know, subtracting the thousand she paid, subtracting the money the insurance paid, leaving a balance of 229,000 and change

Dan: Of course, Lisa French did not have 229 thousand dollars, or anything like it.

Ted Lavender: Eventually she got a visit from the sheriff who served her with a lawsuit and she was sued for that $229,000.

Dan: And that’s where Ted Lavender entered the scene.

The jury trial in 2018 took six days. As Ted Lavender says, it wasn’t exactly a splashy murder trial, in terms of drama.

Ted Lavender: this was a six day trial involving hospital billing. So, you know, there was no murder weapon. There was no aha, big, gotcha moment that was really exciting.

Dan: But Ted Lavender did his best. Like one time, when he got a hospital executive on the witness stand.

To stabilize Lisa French’s spine, surgeons had implanted 13 pieces of metal into her body. So Ted Lavender had the hospital executive walk the jury through the price for each of those bits of metal. Or actually, the prices..

Ted Lavender: And I first showed him the itemized bill and asked him to identify what they charged for these 13 pieces of hardware .

I had given him sort of an oversized calculator that was sitting there in front of him on the witness stand, admittedly, for some dramatic effect

And through adding these up on the itemized bill, he arrived at the number which was $197,000.

Dan: A hundred and ninety-seven thousand dollars. So that’s about two-thirds of the three hundred and three thousand dollars the hospital is trying to charge Lisa French.

And then the next thing I did was I handed in the 13 invoices that we had received from the hospital,

Dan: That is, Ted handed the guy the invoices the hospital had received — and paid — when it bought those bits of metal..

Ted Lavender: and I asked him to add up and tell this jury what did the hospital pay for these 13 pieces of hardware.

He’s adding, and he’s adding and he’s punching in numbers, and he’s turning pages and he’s adding, and he’s adding with each addition, with each plus the jury seemed to ease a little closer up to the front of their chair, and ultimately he arrived at the total, which was $31,000 and change.

Dan: So the hospital’s charging like six and a half times what they paid. And that’s two thirds of this 300 thousand dollar bill.

Ted Lavender: It just, you know, the jury seemingly did not like that.

Dan: So that was a good moment for Lisa French’s side. I mean getting the jury mad at the other side, that’s a win.

And the big calculator wasn’t Ted Lavender’s only visual: He also had a giant post-it note, where he wrote down, in magic marker, all the different prices the hospital accepted for the surgery, depending on who was paying.

Ted Lavender: and we got these numbers from the hospital, they would’ve accepted $146,000 from private insurance.

Dan: That’s less than half of what they were trying to charge Lisa French. And they accepted less than that — a LOT less — from government-funded insurance, like Medicare, Medicaid, or Tricare, which covers folks in the military.

Ted Lavender: The average of what they would’ve accepted for these. Procedures that Ms. French had were $63,199. Again, Ms. French and her insurance company combined paid almost $75,000.

Dan: You can hear that post-it rustling around. It was a good prop, he’s held onto it. So, he’d shown the jury that the hospital charged a HUGE markup, and that what they were suing Lisa French for was way, way more than they charged anybody else.

On the hospital’s side, they were like, Yeah, but this is our actual sticker price. And Lisa French signed a piece of paper that said she would pay “all charges of the hospital.”

So the hospital was like, yep, and these are our charges. That 303 thousand dollars, it comes from a list we keep. It’s called the chargemaster. That’s what Lisa French was signing up for.

And this became something the jury had to decide:

When Lisa French signed a piece of paper saying she’d pay “all charges of the hospital” — was she specifically agreeing to pay what was on the chargemaster?

And here’s one thing that might’ve made jurors a little skeptical on that score: The hospital never showed that chargemaster list to Lisa French. Not before her surgery, not after it. They said it was a trade secret.

Ted Lavender: they went all the way through trial. Never producing it though. We, we, we asked at the very beginning, once the lawsuit was filed, , basically you get to ask questions. Give me this information, give me information that supports your case or helps my case.

And we ask specifically for the charge master and they refuse to produce it on the basis that it was confidential and proprietary.

Dan: By withholding that list, the hospital may have helped Ted Lavender make his argument: How could Lisa French have known what she was signing up for, if she couldn’t see the prices?

Ted Lavender: if we can’t get it through our subpoena power, how in the world would Lisa Friendship been able to use it by, had she asked?

And admittedly she didn’t ask for it, but if she had, surely they wouldn’t have given it to her either.

Dan: In the end, the jury agreed: Lisa French had not specifically agreed to pay the hospital’s chargemaster prices.

And the only other alternative was: She agreed to pay something reasonable.

The jury decided she owed the hospital seven hundred seventy six dollars and 74 cents

Basically, that’s the three hundred and some left over from the original estimate, plus some extra — because she wound up staying in the hospital one night more than expected: She owed a fee for late check-out.

Of course the hospital did not take that lying down. They appealed the outcome– and won! Ted Lavender appealed that decision, which is how the case ended up in front of the Colorado Supreme Court.

We’ve actually got tape of those proceedings. They’re kinda juicy. Plus the outcome, and why it matters for the rest of us. That’s right after this.

This episode of An Arm and a Leg is produced in partnership with KFF Health News–formerly known as Kaiser Health News.

They’re a national newsroom producing in-depth journalism about health care in America. We’ll have more information about KFF Health News at the end of this episode.

OK, so Lisa French’s case was headed to the Colorado Supreme Court.

And here’s the big issue. Remember how the jury found that Lisa French hadn’t actually agreed to pay the hospital’s chargemaster price, the three hundred and three thousand dollars?

The hospital argued: The jury never should’ve been asked to consider that question.

The law — legal precedent — makes it open and shut: The appeals court had agreed. And it had cited other cases from courts around the country.

So when the hospital’s lawyer, Mike McConnell, got up to address the Supreme Court, he led with those citations.

Mike McConnell: All of the questions that you have raised have been addressed in more than a dozen cases around the country. carefully and thoroughly.

Justice Richard L. Gabriel: Well, let me push back on you. Good morning to you, Mr. McConnell.

Mike McConnell: Good morning.

Dan: This is Justice Richard L Gabriel, stepping right in. He notes that these dozen other decisions all rest on one original case, from 2008, where a court had said: We can’t intervene in health care pricing. Courts shouldn’t try. Health care is too complicated.

Justice Gabriel wasn’t convinced.

Justice Richard L. Gabriel: I guess the question I have is why, you know? I, you know, we may not be the smartest people in the world, but this is a contract and why should the hospital industry— different than any other industry on the planet —have different rules for contract principles?

Dan: The hospital lawyer argued that hospitals couldn’t predict everything that would happen in a patient’s care. In fact, the hospital can’t even control it: Only physicians can decide what treatment to order.

Mike McConnell: You can, uh, I guess imagine that hospitals ought to be able to predict in advance what a particular physician is going to order for a particular patient. Um, and, uh, perhaps, you know, obviously you feel that is the way it ought to be. It is not the way it is, but now

Justice Melissa Hart: Mr. Mr. McConnell, I’m sorry, to interrupt…

Dan: Here’s justice Melissa Hart breaking in

Justice Melissa Hart: …the hospital did provide an estimate in this case. They did calculate what they thought this was going to cost and tell her that. So it is, it seems false to me that they can’t do it. Of course, they can’t predict with absolute certainty. In this case, she had the extra night stay in the hospital and she paid for that. But they can predict in a case like this, and they do.

Dan: The justices didn’t seem super-persuaded by McConnell’s response to that. And that left one more big question in front of the justices.

When Lisa French signed a document promising to pay “all charges,” was she definitely agreeing to pay three hundred and three thousand dollars? Or 229 after insurance.

The appeals court found that the chargemaster rate — the 303 thousand — had been “incorporated by reference” to the document she’d signed, officially called the “hospital services agreement.”

The supreme court wasn’t convinced. Here’s Justice Richard Gabriel again.

Justice Richard L. Gabriel: There’s no reference to the charge master on the face of the hospital services agreement.

How could she have assented to something she never even knew existed?

Dan: And here’s how the hospital’s lawyer responded.

Mike McConnell: When she read the provision, all charges not otherwise paid by insurance. She understood that the hospital charges would, she was responsible for paying the hospital charges that her insurance company did it,

Justice Richard L. Gabriel: Whatever it was. They could have charged her a billion dollars and she’s your position to be she’s bound because she agreed. All charges means all charges.

Dan: Huh! There wasn’t a real comeback to that.

The Supreme Court ruled against the hospital, unanimously. Specifically, they ruled that the chargemaster– the 303 thousand dollars– had not been “incorporated by reference” to the piece of paper Lisa French had signed.

She didn’t know those chargemaster list prices even existed. How could she agree to pay them?

So that meant, the court ruled that, quote, “the hospital services agreements left the price term open.”

Which is language that may ring a bell, if you’ve been listening to this show. It’s a legal principle — a bedrock of contract law:

How the law treats an open-price contract — a contract that doesn’t specify a price term.

Here’s a refresher on that principle from Ted Lavender.

Ted Lavender: if you go to McDonald’s and order a, a quarter pounder with cheese and you know, value meal number three, they tell you the price and that is the price that you have to pay. And then they give you your meal.

You enter that contract with an actual price term

Dan: But you can also enter an open-price contract — a contract without a price term.

Ted Lavender: if you have a contract without a price term, without a specific price in it, then the law infer into that contract a reasonable price.

Dan: In other words, a contract with the price term OPEN is not a blank check. I don’t have to pay whatever number the other side makes up.

And that’s what the Colorado Supreme Court found here.

They ruled that, quote, “principles of contract law can certainly be applied to hospital-patient contracts.” They say, a court may have ruled otherwise in 2008, and other courts may have cited that opinion. We disagree.

The Colorado Supreme Court is saying, even in health care, when no price is specified– when the price term is open– you have the right to a reasonable price.

Yes!

And that’s why Lisa French’s case is so interesting to us, here on this show.

Because we’ve talked here about using this legal principle to fight back against outrageous bills.

We’ve heard from one guy, Jeffrey Fox, who actually took a hospital to small claims court to enforce his right to a reasonable price. And won.

We’ve heard from a listener who tried and failed, but said, more of us should try this.

And this Colorado decision seems like good news for anybody interested in doing something like that.

But honestly, it also raises a few concerns that I had not known about before. First:

Well, there ARE all those other cases out there, in other states, that follow the 2008 case, the one that says health care is too complicated for courts to get into.

And yeah, here’s Colorado saying, “No it isn’t.”

But courts in other states aren’t bound by Colorado’s decision. Hm. And second: there’s also something the Colorado court DIDN’T decide:

What if the paper Lisa French signed had specified, “I agree to pay the hospital’s CHARGEMASTER rates?” Could she be required to pay them then? Even if they were a billion dollars?

In their decision, The Colorado court wrote that the chargemaster rates are “increasingly arbitrary” and “inflated” and “have lost any direct connection to hospitals actual cost.”

So Ted Lavender thinks they might’ve said, No, we can’t be held to a billion dollars, just by adding the word “chargemaster.”

Ted Lavender: I think they would’ve answered that. No, but they did not come right out and actually answer that.

Dan: Because they didn’t HAVE to answer that question.

Ted Lavender: Courts routinely, in fact, it’s almost an objective of appeals courts. They answer as few a number of questions as possible to get to an answer. ,

Dan: So the Colorado court simpley ruled that in Lisa French’s case, the chargemaster rates weren’t “incorporated by reference” into papers she signed.

Those papers didn’t didn’t mention the chargemaster at all– and the hospital kept that chargemaster as a trade secret. Open, shut.

But… hospitals aren’t supposed to keep those rates secret anymore. For the last couple of years, thanks to an executive order from the Trump administration, federal rules have required them to post their chargemaster to the internet.

And so I had all that in mind when I heard from a listener in Atlanta.

Cindi Gatton: my name is Cindy Gatton and I’ve been an independent patient advocate for 11 years now.

Dan: Cindi’s job is helping people deal with medical bills, but she had actually written to me about her experience as a patient.

Before a medical appointment, she got the usual forms online, including one for “Patient Financial Agreement and Responsibilities”

Cindi Gatton: so I thought, you know what? I’m gonna print it and just see exactly what it says. And I’m reading through the thing it says, patient understands and agrees that he, she will be charge. The Piedmont Healthcare Standard charge master rates for all services not covered by a payer or that are self-pay.

I’ve never seen that before, and it shocked me that there was a reference to charge master rates in the financial disclosure.

Dan: And Cindi has been dealing with medical bills full-time for a decade. She’s seen a lot. So when she says it’s new, and that it’s shocking, that seems worth noting.

Cindi Gatton: it just feels wrong to me. It feels really wrong because it, it reminds me of, you know, you, you go to a website and they give you their terms and conditions. Nobody reads those. I don’t read them. You click yes so that you can move on with what it is you wanna do, which is to get care, to be seen by the doctor to, you know, have your procedure.

And I don’t know this, this feels, um, it feels manipulative to me

Dan: Yeah, and to me, it feels ominous. Like lawyers who work for hospitals have been paying attention to the Lisa French decision and thinking:

There’s a wedge here maybe we could exploit. Like, if we get you to sign a document that says “chargemaster” on it, we’re getting you to sign away your right to a reasonable price. After all, the court in Colorado didn’t come out and say that wouldn’t be kosher.

So, where I’m landing at the end of this story is: I’ve got a couple big homework assignments:

First, if I’m interested in seeing how we can use our legal rights to fight back against outrageous, unreasonable bills — and I am —

I need to learn more about which states recognize our rights to a reasonable price in health care, and which ones … maybe don’t. I’m on it, and if you’ve got any tips, please bring them.

That’s the first assignment, and for the second, I’d love your help: How many hospitals are using this “chargemaster” language these days in those financial responsbility documents they ask us to sign?

Do me a favor: See if you can get a copy of that document from any hospital system or doctor group where you get seen. And send me a copy of it?

Redact anything you need to. And also know: we’re not aiming to share this with anybody outside our reporting team.

Here’s what happened when I tried this.

A hospital where I get seen uses a portal called MyChart– a lot of hospitals use it. I just logged on to MyChart there, and I did a little digging around. I found a link to something called “My Documents.” And I found a form there called Universal Consent.”

It has stuff about financial responsibility.

It doesn’t mention chargemaster rates. But it’s a year old. It also says it’s expired.

And here’s an idea I got from Cindi, which I’m gonna try– and which seems worth passing around.

When Cindi found that chargemaster language in the document from her Hospital, here’s what she did. She printed it out and changed it:

Cindi Gatton: what I did is instead of the standard charge master rates, I drew a line through it and I wrote in two x Medicare rates.

Dan: In other words, instead of saying “I’ll pay the chargemaster rates,” it says, “I’ll pay two times the Medicare rate.”

We’ve heard about this strategy before, from former ProPublica reporter Marshall Allen, who wrote about it in his book, “Never Pay the First Bill.”

Here’s the rationale. Medicare pays less than most commercial insurance; hospitals say that at least sometimes they lose money on Medicare. Doubling it seems … generous enough. But it also sets a limit.

So that’s what Cindi wrote on her printout.

Cindi Gatton: I have been taking it with me when I go to be seen that if they ask me for the document that I can say, you know, here it is.

Dan: So far, she says, nobody’s asked for it.

And, I don’t think anybody will be confused, but just to make sure, I’ll say: This isn’t legal advice. I’m not a lawyer. Cindi’s not a lawyer.

She’s just a person going to the doctor, doing her best not to leave too many openings where she could get really screwed. And I’m gonna try following her example.

And I’ve got another request for you: If you try this trick of printing the thing out, exxing out the chargemaster language and writing 2 x medicare rates– LET ME KNOW WHAT HAPPENS, OK?

The place to do all this is on our website at arm and a leg show dot com, slash contact. That’s arm and a leg show dot com, slash, contact.

You are this show’s secret weapon. You’re our eyes and ears. Cindi Gatton’s a listener who got in touch.

How did I first learn about Lisa French’s case? Email from a listener. [Thank you, Terry N, for that note last year! Took us a minute, but we got to this.]

Thank you for listening. You absolutely rule. I’ll catch you soon.

Till then, take care of yourself.

This episode of An Arm and a Leg was produced by me, Dan Weissmann, with help from Emily Pisacreta, and edited by Afi Yellow-Duke.

Daisy Rosario is our consulting managing producer. Adam Raymonda is our audio wizard. Our music is by Dave Winer and Blue Dot Sessions.

Gabrielle Healy is our managing editor for audience. She edits the First Aid Kit Newsletter.

Bea Bosco is our consulting director of operations. Sarah Ballema is our operations manager.

An Arm and a Leg is produced in partnership with KFF Health News–formerly known as Kaiser Health News.

That’s a national newsroom producing in-depth journalism about health care in America, and a core program at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.

And yes, you did hear the name Kaiser in there, and no: KFF isn’t affiliated with the health care giant Kaiser Permanente. You can learn more about KFF Health News at arm and a leg show dot com, slash KFF.

Zach Dyer is senior audio producer at KFF Health News. He is editorial liaison to this show.

Thanks to Public Narrative — That’s a Chicago-based group that helps journalists and nonprofits tell better stories– for serving as our fiscal sponsor, allowing us to accept tax-exempt donations. You can learn more about Public Narrative at www dot public narrative dot org.

And thanks to everybody who supports this show financially.

If you haven’t yet, we’d love for you to join us. The place for that is arm and a leg show dot com, slash support.

Thank you!

“An Arm and a Leg” is a co-production of KFF Health News and Public Road Productions.

To keep in touch with “An Arm and a Leg,” subscribe to the newsletter. You can also follow the show on Facebook and Twitter. And if you’ve got stories to tell about the health care system, the producers would love to hear from you.

To hear all KFF Health News podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to “An Arm and a Leg” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).