“A lot of times, health care comes with a job.”

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), in an interview with KOTA on May 30, 2025

Millions of people are expected to lose access to Medicaid and Affordable Care Act marketplace health insurance plans if federal lawmakers approve the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, President Donald Trump’s domestic policy package, which is now moving through the Senate.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune discussed health care and the pending legislation in an interview with KOTA, a South Dakota TV station. But he focused on a different kind of health insurance — employer-sponsored insurance.

“A lot of times, health care comes with a job,” Thune said.

Thune’s comments in the interview were made in the context of highlighting part of the GOP’s economic policy objective. “Creating those better-paying jobs that come with benefits is ultimately the goal here,” he said.

KFF Health News reached out to Thune’s office to find out the basis for this comment. His communications director, Ryan Wrasse, responded by reiterating Thune’s message: “Getting a job has the potential to lead a worker to acquiring health care.”

Paul Fronstin, director of health benefits research at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, said Thune’s comment may also be alluding to discussions surrounding Medicaid work requirements. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act would let nondisabled adults enroll in Medicaid only if they prove they’re volunteering, working, or searching or training for work.

Medicaid, funded by the federal government and states, is the country’s main health insurance program for people with low incomes. Some people with disabilities also qualify.

Some Republicans have built on the jobs talking point in defending the Medicaid cuts and work requirements. Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), for instance, told CNBC the bill isn’t about “kicking people off Medicaid. It’s transitioning from Medicaid to employer-provided health care.”

But the health policy experts we checked with made clear that getting a job isn’t a guarantee for getting work-sponsored insurance.

Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance: The Basics

These experts said most jobs do offer health insurance. But they also said the link between employment and work-based coverage is not always straightforward.

“When I see this statement, I’m like, ‘I’ve got so much more to say about this.’ But I’m not arguing with the statement,” Fronstin said.

Matthew Rae, an associate director focused on researching private insurance at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News, also weighed in.

“Employer-sponsored coverage remains the bedrock of how people get health insurance in the United States,” Rae said. “I would say that getting a job is not a guarantee you’re going to have health insurance. It just increases your chances of getting it.”

About 60% of Americans younger than 65 receive health insurance through their job or as the spouse, child, or other dependent of someone insured through their work, according to 2023 KFF data.

Among workers ages 18 to 64 who were eligible but didn’t sign up for their workplace insurance, 28% said the reason they decided not to enroll was that the plans were too expensive, 2023 KFF data showed.

Most of these workers found health insurance elsewhere, such as through a relative’s workplace plan. But a small percentage of eligible employees, 3.7%, were uninsured.

Health insurance has been “the most valued benefit in the workplace” since businesses began offering it to recruit employees in a tight labor market during World War II, Fronstin said.

Federal law also encourages companies to offer plans. Under the Affordable Care Act, employers with 50 or more full-time workers are penalized if they don’t offer most employees insurance that the federal government considers affordable.

As of last year, 54% of companies offered health insurance to at least some employees, according to KFF.

But that’s not the main way the ACA helped lower the rate of people without health insurance, said Melissa Thomasson, a professor at Miami University in Ohio who specializes in the economic history of health insurance. “Nearly all of that” change, she said, came from the ACA creating private marketplace plans and allowing states to expand Medicaid eligibility.

Health policy analysts say the One Big Beautiful Bill would make it more difficult for people to qualify or afford marketplace plans, with proposals that would increase paperwork, shorten enrollment periods, and allow enhanced tax credits to fizzle out. Thomasson also noted that political rhetoric surrounding jobs and health insurance doesn’t always align.

“We often talk about small businesses being the engine of job creation,” but those are the businesses that often can’t afford to offer workplace insurance, she said.

So Who Isn’t Insured Through Workplace Insurance?

The most obvious category of people who don’t have workplace insurance are those who don’t have a job. This group includes children and retirees, people searching for work, people who choose not to work, and those who can’t work, because of a disability or illness.

Another group without employer-provided insurance is the 25% of people ages 18 to 64 who have a job but are unable to obtain such insurance, according to 2023 data from KFF.

Some of these people work for companies that don’t offer health insurance. These employers tend to be small businesses or part of certain industries, such as farming and construction.

Others are part-time, temporary, or seasonal workers at companies that offer health insurance only to full-time employees. Workers with low incomes are significantly less likely than those with higher incomes to be eligible for workplace insurance, according to 2023 KFF data.

People who aren’t employed or don’t get insurance through their job can get coverage in other ways. Some are insured through a relative’s workplace plan, while others purchase plans and may qualify for subsidies on the ACA marketplace.

Others get insurance through Medicaid or Medicare, the federal health insurance program for people 65 or older and some people with disabilities.

Cost and Quality — And Therefore Access to Care — Vary

Just because someone has health insurance doesn’t mean they’ll get the health care they need. People may skip or delay care if their plans are unaffordable or if they limit in-network providers.

“Health benefits come in all shapes and sizes,” Fronstin said. “Some employers offer very generous benefits, and others less so.”

KFF data shows that premiums and enrollees’ cost-sharing expenses grew faster than wages from 2008 to 2018 but have slowed in recent years.

Whether workplace insurance is affordable significantly varies by income. According to 2020 KFF data, lower-income families insured through a full-time worker spent, on average, 10.4% of their income on premiums and out-of-pocket costs. That’s more than twice the rate when looking at families across all incomes.

Our Ruling

Thune said, “A lot of times, health care comes with a job.”

This statement is partially accurate. Most workers in the U.S. get health coverage through work. But it glosses over aspects of our nation’s job-based health insurance system — such as how costs and coverage, especially for those with lower incomes, can make an employer plan out of reach even if it is available.

Bottom line: Not all jobs provide health insurance or offer plans to all their workers. When they do, cost and quality vary widely — making Thune’s statement an oversimplification.

We rate this statement Half True.

Sources

KOTA interview with Sen. John Thune, May 30, 2025.

CNBC interview with Sen. James Lankford, June 5, 2025.

KFF, “2024 Employer Health Benefits Survey,” Oct. 9, 2024.

KFF, “Employer Responsibility Under the Affordable Care Act,” Feb. 29, 2024.

KFF, “Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance 101,” May 28, 2024.

Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, “What Are the Recent Trends in Employer-Based Health Coverage?” Dec. 22, 2023.

Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, “How Affordability of Employer Coverage Varies by Family Income,”March 10, 2022.

Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, “Tracking the Rise in Premium Contributions and Cost-Sharing for Families With Large Employer Coverage,” Aug. 14, 2019.

Manhattan Institute, “Put Employees in Control of Health Insurance with ‘Worker’s Choice ICHRA,’” May 22, 2025.

Brookings, “Uninsurance Rates Have Fallen Significantly Following the Affordable Care Act,” July 22, 2024.

Harvard Business Review, “Why Do Employers Provide Health Care in the First Place?” March 15, 2019.

Congressional Budget Office letter on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act increasing the number of uninsured people, June 4, 2025.

Phone interview with Paul Fronstin, director of health benefits research at the Employee Benefit Research Institute and a member of the Commonwealth Fund’s National Task Force on the Future Role of Employers in the U.S. Health System, June 6, 2025. 

Phone interview with Melissa Thomasson, professor and health economist at Miami University, June 6, 2025.

Phone interview with Maanasa Kona, associate research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University, June 6, 2025. 

Phone interview with Matthew Rae, associate director for the Health Care Marketplace Program at KFF, June 10, 2025. 

Phone interview with Sally Pipes, president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute, June 11, 2025.

Email correspondence with Ryan Wrasse, communications director for Sen. John Thune, June 10, 2025.

KFF Health News, “Some Employers Test Arrangement To Give Workers Allowance for Coverage,” Oct. 2, 2024.

KFF Health News, “Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ Continues Assault on Obamacare,” June 3, 2025.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

It’s not exactly news that our nation’s health care system is only a “system” in the most generous sense of the word and that no one entity is really in charge of it. Notwithstanding, there are some specific responsibilities that belong to the federal government, others that belong to the states, and still others that are shared between them. And sometimes people and programs fall through the cracks.

Speaking before a live audience on June 23 at Aspen Ideas: Health in Colorado, three former governors — one of whom also served as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services — discussed what it would take to make the nation’s health care system run more smoothly.

The session, moderated by KFF Health News’ Julie Rovner, featured Democrat Kathleen Sebelius, a former governor of Kansas and HHS secretary under President Barack Obama; Republican Chris Sununu, former governor of New Hampshire; and Democrat Roy Cooper, former governor of North Carolina.

Panelists

Kathleen Sebelius
Former HHS secretary, former Kansas governor (D)

Chris Sununu
Former governor of New Hampshire (R)

Roy Cooper
Former governor of North Carolina (D)

Among the takeaways from the discussion:

• States — and the governors who lead them — are major “customers” of the federal health system. For instance, states run research universities with the aid of federal grants from the National Institutes of Health. States also run Medicaid, the joint state-federal program for those with low incomes and disabilities, through which most of the nation’s care for issues such as mental health and substance use disorders is funded. In fact, most federal money sent to states is for Medicaid.
• Cuts to Medicaid outlined in the House and Senate versions of President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act would leave a huge hole in state budgets — one that the states, already facing budget constraints, would be unable to fill without making difficult choices. Notably, the bill does not make substantive cuts Medicare, a program that has a significant amount of excess spending and is expected to be insolvent within a decade.
• Controlling health care costs is a major concern for the future of the nation’s fragmented health care system, as is maintaining the health care workforce. More people without insurance coverage means higher overall costs. Pandemic burnout, immigration raids, and even the cost of college are putting pressure on a dwindling workforce. The federal government could do more to encourage medical professionals to go into primary care and rural health care.

Video of this episode is available here on YouTube.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Live From Aspen — Governors and an HHS Secretary Sound Off

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, coming to you this week from the Aspen Ideas: Health conference in Aspen, Colorado. For this week’s podcast, we’re presenting a panel I moderated here with three former governors and one former HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] secretary, on how states and the federal government work together. This was taped on Monday, June 23, before a live audience. So, as we say, here we go. 

Good morning. Thank you all for being here. I’m Julie Rovner. I’m chief Washington correspondent at KFF Health News, and I’m host of our weekly health news podcast — “What the Health?” — which we will do double duty this week for this panel. I am so thrilled to be here, and I welcome you all to Aspen Ideas: Health. As a journalist who’s covered health policy at the federal and state level for, let us just say, many years, I am super excited for this panel, which brings together those with experience in both. 

I will start by introducing our panelists. Here on my left is Kathleen Sebelius. She served as HHS secretary during the Obama administration from 2009 to 2014, presiding over the passage and implementation of the Affordable Care Act. I hope you were all around last night for the wonderful panel where they were reminiscing. Prior to her tenure in Washington, Secretary Sebelius served two terms as Kansas’ elected insurance commissioner and two more as governor. Today she also consults on health policy and serves on several boards, including — full disclosure — that of my organization, KFF. 

Next to her is Chris Sununu. He’s the former Republican governor of New Hampshire. Opposed, he was elected to a record four times before returning to the private sector. He’s also the only trained environmental engineer on this panel. 

Finally, Roy Cooper is the former Democratic governor of North Carolina, where he served alongside Gov. Sununu. I’m sure they have many stories to tell. As a state lawmaker, Mr. Cooper wrote the state’s first children’s health insurance program in the 1980s and as governor championed the state’s somewhat belated Medicaid expansion in 2023, which we’ll also talk about. He’s currently teaching at the Harvard School of Public Health. 

So here’s what we’re going to do. I’m going to chat with these guys for, I don’t know, 30, 40 minutes, and then we will open it to questions from the audience. There will be someone with microphones. I will let you know when it’s time. Just please make sure your question is a question. 

So, I want to set the stage. It’s not exactly news that our nation’s health care system can only be called a system in the very most generous sense of that term. Nobody is really in charge of it. Notwithstanding that, there are some specific responsibilities that belong to the federal government, others that belong to the states and or counties and cities, and still others that are shared between them. Kathleen, you’re the one on this panel who has served as both governor and as HHS secretary, so I was hoping you could give us two or three minutes on what you see as the primary roles for health care at the federal level at HHS, and those for states. And then I’ll let the rest of you weigh in. 

Kathleen Sebelius: Well, good morning, everybody, and thanks, Julie, for moderating. It’s lovely to be with my colleagues. That’s one of my former lives, as governor, so it’s great to be with governor colleagues. And just to make it clear, we’re not trying to gang up on Chris Sununu. Alex Azar, former HHS secretary in the first Trump administration, was supposed to be here today and had a family health issue, so he couldn’t join us. So it was supposed to be a little more balanced just to— 

Chris Sununu: My conservative lifeline has abandoned me, and he’ll buy me dinner in D.C. next time I’m in town. 

Sebelius: So, as Julie said, I think the health system, if you want to call it that, is definitely interrelated. And I think it’s one of the reasons that a lot of HHS secretaries have actually been governors, because we’re customers, if you will, of the federal health system. But just to break down a couple of categories: I was the elected insurance commissioner, which is an unusual spot. Only 11 states elect an insurance commissioner. Most are appointed as part of a governor’s Cabinet, but insurance is an over $3 trillion-a-year industry, still regulated at the state level. It’s the only multitrillion-dollar industry that there is no federal insurance regulator, and it still has a lot of control over health issues at the state level. The insurance commissioners regulate the marketplace plans. They look out for every company selling private insurance. They regulate Medicare supplemental plans. They’re very involved in consumer protection issues for insurance. And that’s all at the state level. 

Then the governor is clearly in charge of health at the state level. Runs the state employee plan in every state, which often is the largest insurance pool. I don’t know about in North Carolina or New Hampshire, but it certainly was in Kansas. Runs Medicaid, a huge health program. Is in charge of mental health, of the whole issues around the opioid crisis and drug issues. So a broad swath. In charge of prison health and corrections. A lot of health issues at the state level. And then you get to HHS, which is an agency that probably interacts more with states than any other Cabinet agency. I wrote down some of these numbers just so I wasn’t making them up off the top of my head, but 69% of all federal grants to states are Medicaid, and HHS transfers more money to state governments than all the other domestic agencies put together. 

So it’s largely Medicaid, but it also is mental health block grants. It’s all the children and families programs. It’s Head Start. It’s agencies on aging. There’s a real interaction. So governors are often good customers, if you will, of HHS. They need to be intertwined. They need to know what’s going on, what grants are on the table. Runs the whole Indian Health Service. A number of us had tribes in our states. So there is a lot of interaction. And even though I wasn’t able to quickly quantify the number, the other thing — and it’s become more apparent with the cuts on the table — is states run universities, which rely on research grants from the federal government. 

So the recently announced NIH [National Institutes of Health] cuts have huge implications in Kansas. We have three major universities, which are losing hundreds of millions of dollars in research projects. But that’s gone on all over the country. So there is a lot of interaction between the state and federal government. And as I say, with the insurance commissioner, we had to build an office at HHS to regulate the marketplace, because there were no federal regulators. So I brought in a lot of my former colleagues who had been in insurance departments around the country, to help set up that regulatory system and that oversight. 

Rovner: So I would like to ask the two former governors who’ve not been HHS secretaries, if you can, to give us an example of cooperation between the federal government and state government on health care that worked really well and an example of one that maybe didn’t work so well. 

Sununu: So I would argue they don’t work well more than they work well, unfortunately. So a big issue I think, across the entire country, is rural access to care, right? So a lot of these grants — and the secretary’s right — a lot of the grants that come in through Medicaid, they’ll go to population centers and population health. That’s really, really important aspects. But rural access to care, where you talk about mental health, the opioid crisis, that’s really where so many folks get left out of the mix. We went down and I inherited — I don’t want to say “inherited” — New Hampshire was at the tip of the spear for the drug crisis, right? The opioid crisis, 2017, we had the second-highest death rate in the country, and we realized the overdose rate, the death rate, was four times higher in rural New Hampshire than our inner cities, right? Four times. Why? It wasn’t that — it’s because nobody was putting services out there. 

Because it’s so much easier to put the services in the city. So a good example is, we went down to D.C. We worked with, at the time, Secretary Azar, the head of CMS —CMS is the center of Medicaid services and Medicare services, that’s really the overseer of these massive, massive programs — to get some flexibility with the grants to be able to do a little more with our dollars and create a hub-and-spoke system for rural access to care. And that worked really, really, really well. And I’m not here to tout [President Donald] Trump or anything, but at the time the Trump administration really got that and it worked well. 

But I would say, more often than not, if you want something done a little different — we call them [Section] 1115 waivers, not to get wonky — you want to try something, the challenge isn’t that D.C. won’t let you do it. The challenge is it can take forever to get it done. It takes six months for my team to put together an 1115 application and then a year and a half sometimes for Washington to decide, after a hundred lawyers look at it, whether they’ll allow you to do it. So I would always argue, at the base of all this, is — Gov. Cooper, at the time, and his team, they know what North Carolina needs in terms of health care, specialized services, better than Washington, right? Or Mississippi. Or New Hampshire. The states know. They’re on the ground. 

And my argument has always been: The best thing Washington can do if you want to save money and get better outcomes in health care, go more to a block-grant-type system. I know people don’t like to hear that, but let the states who are on the ground have more flexibility with those Medicaid dollars, create the efficiency at a localized level, where the patient interactions there with a — because again, I had an opioid crisis. Maybe there’s a huge mental health crisis in North Carolina. Maybe there’s an acute-care crisis in urban populations in California. Let them have flexibility and the ability to make more immediate returns on that. And so that’s why I say more often than not, it doesn’t work, because of the time delay. The bureaucracy, the lawyers. No offense to the — well, I don’t care if you take offense. But the lawyers in the room, the lawyers that get a hold of this thing and then give you a hundred reasons why it can’t happen. 

And then the last thing I’ll throw out there is billing codes. Do you know there’s 10,000 Medicaid billing codes? Trying to ask a small nonprofit who’s providing local health care services and a volunteer to understand 10,000 Medicaid billing codes, and what happens? Often it’s not nefarious, but they get them wrong and then it comes back and it goes back and forth and the cash gets held up because of Washington, as opposed to just having a localized, We have our problem, let’s fix it on the ground, and move forward and get the help they need. So my challenge is always with the bureaucracy and slowing things down more than anything. 

Rovner: Gov. Cooper. 

Roy Cooper: Glad to be with you, Julie, and I worked closely with Gov. Sununu. We served as governors at the same time, and glad to have then-Gov. Sibelius, working with her when I was attorney general of North Carolina. I was an OK governor, but I’ve got the greatest first lady in the history of North Carolina with my wife, Kristin, who’s with us today. And thank you for all the work that you did. Somebody asked me what I miss most about being governor, and I said ingress and egress to sporting events was what I — because I had to learn to drive again. 

So I look at this relationship as the federal government being a major funder to reach goals, but that states have the flexibility within those guidelines to deal with individual challenges that states have. And I don’t disagree completely with Gov. Sununu about how the waiver system is working, but when you get it working, it does some miracles. 

For example, we got the first 1115 waiver in the country, to invest Medicaid dollars in social determinants of health. We called it Healthy Opportunities. And we’ve talked so much again and again about prevention and how investment there can make such a huge difference. We also got another waiver with hospital-directed payments to require all of our 99 hospitals to take part in a medical debt relief plan. When we expanded Medicaid in North Carolina, which we’ll talk a little bit about in a minute, more than 652,000 people were so grateful to have health insurance, but many of them owed so much money in medical debt that it prevented them from buying a house or getting a credit card and was causing all kinds of problems. So we got a waiver to put a requirement in the directed payments that hospitals are getting to make sure that we wipe off the books that $4 billion in medical debt in North Carolina, and that is happening as we speak. 

People are getting the books cleared, all people who were on Medicaid and those making 350% or less of the federal poverty level. And then going forward, in order to continue to get the directed payments, they have to automatically enroll people at that income level into their programs for charity. So the cost of health care is being borne by those who can least afford it. And Medicaid has given us the opportunity and the flexibility with Medicaid has given us an opportunity to make those investments, and that’s why I worry, Governor, about what this bill that’s coming — you talk about red tape now. You look at red tape that’s coming if this legislation passes Congress right now. It’s going to make it 10 times worse. 

So when you think about what Medicaid has done and this system with all of its faults — it has many — we’re at the lowest uninsured rate we’ve been right now. So that thus far has been a success. We’ve got a long way to go, but I think that we need to continue to work to make the investments angle toward prevention and keeping that symbiotic relationship between the federal and the state, make it smoother, eliminate red tape. But I think we’re making some progress. 

Rovner: So let’s talk about Medicaid, which is kind of the elephant in the room right now since the Senate is presumably going to take up a bill that would make some significant cuts to the program, possibly as soon as this week. You’ve all three run Medicaid programs as governors. One of the Republican talking points on this bill is that what’s supposed to be a shared program, states are using loopholes and gimmicks to make the federal government pay more. What would happen if these cuts actually went through? Would states be able to just say: OK, you caught us. Now we’re just going to have to pay up? 

Sebelius: Well, I can talk a little bit about it. So I live in a state, unfortunately, that has not expanded Medicaid. Kansas is one of the 10 states, although 40 states and the District of Columbia have used the Affordable Care Act provision to enroll slightly higher-income working folks in Medicaid. And it’s a huge federal-state partnership, with the federal government paying 90% of the premium cost of that additional population. 

Rovner: And that was because the states didn’t think they had the money to expand otherwise? 

Sebelius: That’s correct. So it was a generous offer, but after the Supreme Court it was a voluntary program. So there are still 10 states in the country, and what you can see easily looking at the map of the country is what the health outcomes are in the states that have not expanded. Expansion was available on Jan. 1, 2014. So we have a 10-year real-time experiment in health outcomes, in budget outcomes, in what has happened to the state economy. And we know a couple of things from a national level. More hospitals have closed, mostly rural hospitals, in states that have not expanded than the states that expanded. There are fairly significant health differences now. There were health differences before, but they have been accelerated. 

There are more maternal-health deaths in states that have not expanded, not because the woman may not be eligible for Medicaid but because the hospital closes and now she’s 50 miles away from her birthing center and transportation issues and don’t have gas in the car and whatever. We are losing women having children, which is really shocking in the United States of America. So I think that not only is Medicaid a huge portion — I had a good friend who some of you may know, Brian Schweitzer, who was the former governor of Montana, and Brian used to say what a governor does is pretty easy. We medicate, we educate, we incarcerate, and the rest is chump change. You can find it in the couch, but it— 

Sununu: Well, I disagree with that. Totally different discussion. 

Sebelius: In terms of where the money is. Those are the big chunks of — and Medicaid in most state budgets, it’s a huge chunk of money. So when you talk about potentially $700 billion in cuts to Medicaid, it will blow up state budgets across the country, and it will leave, to Gov. Sununu and Gov. Cooper’s points, literally millions of people uninsured. The estimates out of the House bill — the Senate bill still hasn’t been scored — out of the House bill is 8- to 9 million people, but I think that’s likely to go up with a Senate bill. 

Sununu: I would add, expanded Medicaid has been — we were an expanded Medicaid state. It’s been wonderful. Health outcomes are definitely a lot better. There’s a lot more access to services, and these are, again, the difference in the population, these are able-bodied working adults as opposed to the traditional Medicaid population that deal with either poverty issues or disability and all this other stuff. So it’s a 50-50 versus split on traditional versus 90-10. I don’t have a problem with changes. The way they’re doing it is awful. So as a state, if you want — they are really adamant about dropping it, and it would lead to bad outcomes, there’s no question — I would say, OK, do it over 10 years. We’re going to drop it 5% a year. Allow states to gradually come in, right? Allow states to alter their budgets. No state can alter their budget and take up — in California it might even be a trillion, hundreds of billions of dollars. 

Sebelius: Yeah. 

Sununu: So it’s so much money. So no state can do that. And so obviously you’d have a collapse of the system. It would be terrible to do that, and they’ve taken that off the table. The meta-scam piece is much more complicated, where states tax hospitals, match it with federal funds and send it back to hospitals in terms of uncompensated care. That’s a bad practice that everybody does, so we should keep it. I don’t know a better way to say it. And I say that because New Hampshire was the first one.  

Sebelius: And it’s legal. It’s legal. 

Sununu: We invented it in ’92. It’s legal. It’s fine. It’s become precedent in practice. It’s OK. And so we should keep doing that. And what they’re going to do is lower the amount that states can tax the hospitals and therefore lower the amount that we would get. And that, really, for us — I don’t know how other states use their dollars — we put a large portion of that back to hospitals for that uncompensated population, the ones that truly are unregistered. I don’t mind going after — we should get the cost at some point, right? You all owe $37 trillion, by the way. I hope you know that. So the savings have to come from somewhere, but Washington has to be smart about how to do it, what the actual outcomes are going to be, and how to ratchet it down so you’re not, again, throwing everybody off the cliff. And that’s what this bill would do. It would throw people right off a cliff. 

Cooper: Yeah, I think the answer is absolutely no states can’t afford it. We governors have to balance budgets. The federal government obviously doesn’t. They just continue to raise the debt ceiling, problems in and of itself, but that’s where the funding should come from. I think there are a few billionaires we could tax a little bit more in order to create more funding to do the work that we need to do, but— 

Sununu: There’s a basket at the door if you all want to drop something in on the way out. 

Sebelius: A big basket. 

Cooper: That, too. But I think that if we’re going to rely on the states — what’s happening now, I think, is a sneaky way to do this. I think they have understood that just openly and notoriously telling the states they have to pay more is not going to work and it’s not politically feasible. But what they have done is gone through the back door and created all of this red tape that’s going to end up with people being pushed off who are otherwise eligible. It’s going to end up with states having to make horrible choices, like with SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] benefits, for example. 

In North Carolina, we’ll have a shortfall of about $700 million. Now with SNAP benefits, not only do you feed hungry people who need food, but there’s an economic benefit to our state. It’s like a $1.80 economic benefit generated from $1 of SNAP benefit. But I don’t see my Republican legislature putting in an extra $700 million in SNAP benefits in order to be able to feed hungry people. So the choices that states are going to make are going to be bad, because states are limited as to the decisions that they have to make. And this is going to be really tough, particularly if this Senate bill doesn’t change a whole lot. States are going to have a significant problem. 

Sebelius: All I wanted to say is in addition to the Medicaid issue hitting a big portion of the lower-income working population is a corresponding Affordable Care Act hit that isn’t in the bill, because it’s a tax incentive that will expire at the end of this year. So not acting on the additional premium tax credits for the Affordable Care Act hits almost the same — in a state like Kansas, which has not expanded Medicaid, a lot of that population is in the marketplace plans with an enhanced tax credit. That goes away at the end of the year. So we’re looking at potentially 11 million people in states across this country. 

And no governor has the ability to write a check and say: OK, I’m going to just provide, out of 100% state funds, I’ll help you buy your health insurance. But not having health insurance means you don’t get doctors paid, more hospitals go on —it has a ripple. People can’t take their meds. They can’t go to work. They have mental health issues. It is a really spiraling impact. And as Gov. Cooper and Sununu have said, we have the lowest rate of uninsured Americans right now that we’ve ever had in history, and that could change pretty dramatically. 

Sununu: The only other piece I was going to bring up just to highlight the cowardice of Washington, D.C.: Why are they focusing on Medicaid, but no one wants to talk Medicare? Well, it’s easy because states, right? Because they can blame states. Well, we made changes, but it’s up to the states whether they want to keep it or not, right? And they’re going to blame the governors and blame what’s happening at the state level, whether expanded Medicaid survives or not. Meanwhile, it’s the crisis that they’re creating. Then you have Medicare, which, by the way, everyone agrees there’s massive waste and fraud and abuse, and that system needs a massive overhaul because that system, by the way, is going bankrupt, right? It’ll be insolvent in nine or 10 years, something like that, right?. But no one wants to talk about that piece, right?. But that’s an integral piece because both those left and right hands of Medicaid and Medicare drive the non-private sector of health care, right? Which creates not a competitive — we can get into the whole reducing competition in a free market in health care to actually get costs down. 

But it’s really hard as a governor, I think, and I think I speak for all 50, to hear Washington talk about all these massive cuts they want to make to Medicaid, but they’re not going to touch Medicare, because that’s a federal program. And so they have to do both in some way, and they have to do it in a smart way, in an even-keeled way. It has to take place over time. It has to look at population health outcomes. But they don’t think like that. They just don’t. They look at top-line numbers, top-line issues. Maybe they’ll get to the bill in a few weeks. Maybe they won’t. They’ll be on vacation most of the summer. It’ll be very frustrating. Even if it passes in the Senate, it won’t even — what? September, maybe? Maybe they take it up in September? 

Rovner: You don’t think they’re going to make it by July Fourth? 

Sununu: The Senate might, but then they vacation. They’ve got to go on vacation. So isn’t that the frustration we all have? We have a major crisis here. Here’s an idea. Do your jobs. 

Sebelius: Just a small addendum, too. 

Sununu: Sorry. I’m frustrated. 

Sebelius: Gov. Sununu, because he’s the baby of the group, if you can tell, and I’m part of the gray tsunami. Part of the reason Medicare is running out of money is at least when my parents were involved in Medicare, there were six or seven workers for every retiree. We’re now down to two. And I want to know those two workers. I got to tell you, I’m at a point in my life I’d like to bring them home with me, feed them on a regular basis, get them — but we have an aging country. We have many more people enrolled in Medicare right now than we have had in the past and fewer in the workforce. So the math, you’re right, is daunting going forward, but it isn’t, I would suggest, massive waste, fraud, and abuse as much as a changing demographic in our population. 

Sununu: I was quoting [Rep. Nancy] Pelosi on that one. Sorry. 

Rovner: I want to pick up on something. For those who were not there last night for the Affordable Care Act session, one of the things that no one brought up is that in the intervening 15 years since the Affordable Care Act passed, I think, every single one of the funding mechanisms to help offset the cost of the bill has been repealed by Congress. The individual mandate is gone. Most of the industry-specific taxes are gone. The Cadillac tax that was going to try and deter very generous health plans is gone. States don’t have this kind of opportunity to say, We’re going to pass something that pays for itself, and then get rid of the pay force, right? 

Cooper: That’s a really good point. And right now the Affordable Care Act is working to insure a lot of people, but it’s continuing along with all of our system that’s set up to drive up the cost. And I know we’re going to talk a little bit about cost in just a minute, but again, I agree with Gov. Sununu — that’s the coward’s way out. All of the lobbyists come with their special interests who are paying something and should be paying something, but they get it removed piece by piece by piece. And then the only way to get it is from the very people who need it the most. And they’re the ones who end up suffering. And I think it was mentioned last night — $14,600 a person in the United States for investment in health care. That’s wrong on many levels. 

Rovner: So let’s talk about cost. Who is responsible for controlling the cost of health care? Both sides point at each other. And as I mentioned at the opening, we don’t really have a system, but we obviously have the federal government responsible for a lot of health care bills and the state government’s responsible for a lot of health care bills. So at what point does somebody step up and say, We really need to get this under control? 

Sununu: I’ll throw a couple things in there. The average cost to spend overnight, in America, in a hospital: $32,000 — a night. That’s insane, right? That’s insane. And so the argument that I always have is, let’s look at the cost to stay in a hospital. And I know this is going to seem far afield, but it’s all part of health care. What I pay my average social worker — which, by the way, we need a lot more social workers. And if a social worker’s making 50 grand a year, they’re lucky doing it and God bless them. They’re doing incredibly hard work. So why do we have a system that is driving these costs here, that haven’t gotten any of those costs under control, still make it really difficult to pay the workforce? And I think workforce is a huge part of this crisis. 

Rovner: Next question. 

Sununu: Yeah, that’s another the question, especially the social workers and whatnot and generationally and nurses and all that to get them in there. If you don’t have the workforce, it’s not going to work. So the disparity of costs. And then there are certain aspects, let’s talk pharmaceuticals, where you are all, we are all effectively paying massive costs on pharmaceuticals because we’re subsidizing the rest of the world, right? Because they’re developed here. There’s massive cost controls in Europe, so we pay a huge amount of money. And again, I’m going to bring up Trump only because he brought up the “fat shot.” Is that what he called it? The other—? Yeah. The fact that Ozempic here is $1,200 but a hundred bucks in Europe. Why? Because they have cost controls there, and our fairly unregulated system forces those types of costs on the private sector here. 

So I’m a free-market guy. I’m always a believer that the more private sector investment you get and the more, I’ll just call it competition, especially smaller competition, can create better outcomes. But we just don’t have that. There’s no private sector. There’s no competition in health care, because so much of it is driven by Medicaid and Medicare. So I would just argue that you have to look at finding the balance here in the U.S., but don’t forget there’s other issues across the rest of the world that are affecting your costs as well. 

Cooper: And I’ll give you two things. One that you don’t do to affect the cost issue. You may be tempted to reduce your budget to throw people off of coverage, but more people without coverage increases costs significantly, and we all pay for it when you have indigent patients going into those hospitals. They go to the private sector first, which is why a lot of businesses in North Carolina supported our expansion of Medicaid, because 44% of small businesses don’t even provide coverage for their customers. So we should not be kicking people off coverage. In order to reduce costs, we need to cover more people. And the second thing we should do, and this we say a lot here and it was said last night, but collectively, if we can come together and make these short-term investments for long-term gain on primary care and prevention, that is the best way to lower costs to make sure people are healthier. Because our system is geared to spend all the money when it is most expensive and not when it is least expensive and can do the most good to delay that spending at the other end. 

And there are a lot of ways that we can approach this, but what frustrates me about Washington is that you don’t see any real effort there to concentrate on prevention and primary care and making those investments that we know — we know — not only save lives but save money and reduce the cost of health care. And I think that can be a bipartisan way that we can come together to deal with this. Things you mentioned, certainly driving up the cost, but that is a basic thing that we know will make people healthier and will cost the system less. 

Sebelius: I don’t think there’s any disagreement in all of us and probably all of you that we pay way too much for health care per capita. And we have pretty indifferent health results. We have great care for some of the people some of the time. But in terms of universally good care for people across this country, regardless of where you live, it just doesn’t happen. It isn’t delivered, regardless of the fact that we spend much more money. I would say that it’s beginning to have some impact, but a couple things occurred as part of the framework of the Affordable Care Act and other changes at the D.C. level. First, Medicare began to issue value-based payment contracts. They were nonexistent before 2010, and that just means you begin to pay for outcomes. Not just doing more stuff makes more money, but what happens to the patient? Is it a good recovery? Do you come back to the hospital too soon? Is somebody following up? 

So that has shifted now to most Medicare payments are really in a value-based payment outcome. And that has made a difference. I think it makes a difference in patient outcomes. It makes a difference across the board. There has been some change, not nearly enough, in primary care reimbursement. We need a whole lot more of that. Specialty care pays so much more than primary care, and it discourages young docs from going into a primary care field, a gerontology field, a pediatric field. We desperately need folks. I’d say third that a lot of hospitals, and particularly in rural areas, to your point, Gov. Sununu, are beginning to look at a range of services, not just, as we call it, butts in beds, but they’re running long-term care services. They’re running a lot of outpatient. 

And we just had a session on rural health care, and the amount of outpatient care provided by rural hospitals is now up to about 80%. So actually they’re trying to do prevention, trying to meet people where they are. We have to keep some support systems under those hospitals, because if their only payment is how many bed spaces you fill per night, it’s counterintuitive to have hospitals doing prevention and then their bottom line is affected. But I think Gov. Cooper is just absolutely right on target. There was a huge prevention fund for the first time in the Affordable Care Act. It went to states and cities, not to some federal government. It was called, for years, a big slush fund. But it has engaged, I think, a lot of people, a lot of mayors, a lot of governors in everything from bike trails to healthy eating to scratch kitchens in schools, to doing a range of reintroducing physical education back into education classes. But we need to do a lot more of that. 

Sununu: Can I ask a question? Were you guys a managed Medicaid state? 

Cooper: Yeah, we are now. 

Sununu: Were you at the time? So for those who know, maybe 40 states, 41, 42 states? 

Sebelius: I think it’s almost 45. 

Sununu: So the states, I don’t know when this started. It had started right around the time I got in New Hampshire. We hired a couple large companies to basically manage our Medicaid. But to the Gov. Cooper’s point, theoretically you bring those companies in to look at the whole health of the individual and more on the prevention services, more on that side as opposed to just fee-for-service, fee-for-service, right? Where you get inefficiency and waste and all that sort of thing. It’s worked, kind of. I think most of the models still have a lot of fee-for-service built into them. And so it’s not quite there. You have these very large companies, the Centenes and some of these other really, really large companies that are effectively deciding whether — they’re insurance companies that are deciding whether someone should get care or not, or that service is required or not. 

Usually it works, but obviously we have a lot of tragic stories of families getting rejected for service or things like that. So, I think if given more flexibility that it could theoretically work, but I think the managed-care model is mostly working but not great. But it was designed to deal with exactly what Gov. Cooper’s talking about, the whole health of the individual, more preventive care. Don’t wait for the person on Medicaid to lose all their teeth — right? — because they’re a meth addict and they have massive heart and liver issues, right? Get them those prevention services early on because they’re into a recovery program and the whole health of the individual exponentially saves you money and increases their health outcomes and all that. But if you have somebody looking at that from a holistic perspective, theoretically it comes out better. I don’t know. You probably have a better perspective than anyone whether you think it really has worked or not. 

Sebelius: Well, I think it’s beginning to work and it works better in some places than others. But I think that the federal programs, arguably both Medicare and Medicaid, provide, if you will, the most efficient health insurance going. Private plans, in all due deference to your market competition, run anywhere from 15 to 20% overhead. Medicare runs at a 2% overhead. Medicaid is about that same thing. So delivery of health benefits on an efficient basis is really at the public sector, less at the private sector, which is why we were hoping to have a public option in the Affordable Care Act to get that market competition. Medicare Advantage provides market competition now to fee-for-service. And some of the companies do a great job with holistic care. Some of the companies do a really bad job, far more denials, far more issues of people not being able to get the benefits they need. So it is a balanced thing. 

Sununu: And smaller states, we had a trouble because we couldn’t find many companies that wanted to come into a small state like New Hampshire, because the population wasn’t going to be huge. We have the lowest population on Medicaid in the country. So if I got a third company and maybe they get 35-, 40,000 people, what’s the risk pool of those individuals? They might be like, Nah, it’s not going to work for us, right? So the smaller states, because they’re managed at the state level, have challenges. We tried to actually partner with Vermont and Maine. 

Sebelius: Regional. 

Sununu: Right? Regional opportunities. The feds wouldn’t let us do that. Very frustrating. But not you. 

Sebelius: I did a waiver for New Hampshire to have a regional program. 

Sununu: No, I blame Alex for that. That’s another thing — I’ve yelled at Alex for that for years. 

Sebelius: Maybe the next guys took it away. 

Rovner: So we keep talking about people getting care or people not getting care. We haven’t talked a lot about the people who deliver the care. Obviously the health care workforce is a continuing frustration in this country, as we know. We have too many specialists, not enough primary care doctors, not enough primary care available in rural areas. What’s the various responsibility of the federal government and the states to try and ensure that — obviously states need to worry about workforce development. Isn’t that one of the things that states do? 

Sununu: All right, I’ll kick things off because I’ll say something really liberal that you’ll all love. Do you know what the key is? Honestly? It’s an immigration reform bill. 

Sebelius: I was just— 

Sununu: It’s immigration reform. Because this generation is not having kids, right? We’re losing population. So just the math on bodies, if you will, in terms of entering any workforce is going to be challenging as the United States goes forward. More and more if you look at the number of people, social workers, people in recovery, MLADCs [master licensed alcohol and drug counselors] in recovery programs, nurses, whatever it is, those tend to be more people that are born outside of this country, that come to this country. They go to nursing school — whatever it is they become, it’s great. 

But until we get a good immigration reform bill that opens those doors bigger and better and with more regulation on top of them, but open those doors, I think it’s going to be a challenge. It’s not necessarily an issue for the government to — government can’t create people, right? Maybe we can incentivize more schools and that sort of thing. And I think most governors do that. We put in nursing schools in our university system and all that, but you still have to fill the seats and you still have to encourage the young people to want to get into those types of programs. 

Sebelius: I think the government at the state and local level and federal level can do more. More residency programs. The federal government can actually move the needle on some of the payment systems for specialty vs. primary care. And we haven’t moved fast enough on that. I think that’s no doubt. What’s pending right now with ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] raids all over the country and people being terrified to come here or stay here is going to make the workforce issue significantly worse. Home health care workers, folks in nursing homes, people who are LPNs [licensed practical nurses] are now being discouraged from either coming or staying. And I think we’re in for an even bigger shock. 

A lot of folks got burned out in covid. There’s no question that we lost vital health care workers. We need to be on a really massive rebuilding program, and instead we have put up a big red flag. And a lot of people who are here who are providing care, who may have a family member or somebody else who is not at legal status, and they’re gone or they’re not going to go to work or they’re not going to provide those services. And I think we’re about to hit even a bigger wall. 

Cooper: You’ve mentioned compensation. Obviously gearing more toward the preventive side, the primary care side is important. I also think one thing that’s working some, and I think we could do more, obviously requires funding, but providing scholarship money for doctors, nurses, others who agree to give a certain number of years of service in primary care and particularly in rural areas. We’re seeing some of that work. There are a lot of people who feel compelled. You mentioned, when I was up at the Chan School at Harvard and I was teaching a graduate school class, and I love public health people because they care so passionately about others and they want to get in this field. Making it financially viable for them to be able to complete the mission that they feel in their heart, I think, is something that I think is worthy of greater investment. 

Sununu: To that point, I think it’s a great idea and it definitely works. But even before that, just look at what it costs to go to a four-year college now, right? I’m a parent. I have a 20-, 19-, and a 12-year-old. So we’re all absolutely looking at what college costs, and I don’t mind picking on a few of them. Like NYU [New York University], what, a $100,000? So my daughter’s not going to be a nurse, even think about being a nurse, because questioning whether she even goes to college, right? Because she might go to take community college classes instead or do something else. So, or she’s got to find that other pathway. So the initial steps to getting to be a doctor or higher-level primary care physician even, there’s a huge barrier before the barrier. 

And so I think we just need to think holistically about how young people and why they’re making certain choices, and the financial aspects of going to college, I think, over the next 10 years are going to really blow up and create a massive problem. And sometimes it’s very healthy, right?. Sometimes it’s great that young people are thinking differently. It’s not, Go to a four-year college or you don’t have value. No, they think totally different. They know they can have a great life path in other areas, but that postsecondary first-four-year barrier right now is just, we’re just scratching the surface of how big it will be in terms of preventing them from entering the four-year. 

Rovner: We’re running out of time. I do want to let the audience— 

Sebelius: Can I just— 

Rovner: Yes. 

Sebelius: One thing to Gov. Sununu’s point. So there is the national commissioned health corps, which does pay off medical debt for nursing students blah blah blah. What we found, though, is a lot of people couldn’t even get to the medical debt, because they can’t get their college paid off. They can’t get into medical school. So moving that to a much more upstream, into high school, into early college, is the way we get— 

Sununu: Certificate programs in high school, like pre-nursing programs, social-work programs in your vo-tech schools — huge opportunities there. You get like a 14- or 15-year-old excited about helping someone. You’re giving them a certificate. They could enter the workforce at 19 in some ways. And then the workforce is helping them pay off that schooling or expanding those community— 

Sebelius: Or sending them on. 

Sununu: Yeah. There’s all these other ways to do it. So I think that’s the gateway that we have to keep opening. 

Sebelius: It’s got to be earlier though. 

Sununu: Much earlier. 

Rovner: All right, we have time for a couple of questions. I see a lot of hands. Wait until a microphone gets to you. OK. 

Stephanie Diaz: Hi, and thank you for this amazing conversation. My name is Stephanie Diaz. I’m with a corporate venture fund attached to a health system. Really thrilled for this conversation, and where it ended on workforce is really compelling. The Big Beautiful Bill and the Senate version has a cap on financial aid for degrees like medical programs. Considering what you just said, what are the goals of legislation like that and what can— 

Sebelius: No idea. 

Diaz: Why? 

Cooper: Save money. 

Sununu: Yeah, yeah. 

Cooper: Finding a way. 

Rovner: What would the impact be? I think that’s probably a fairer question. 

Sununu: Well, in this field would be devastating, right? I would imagine. I don’t know what the cap is. I don’t know what they’re basing that on. I don’t know if they’re— 

Diaz: $150,000. And we know that a medical degree costs, well, more than $150,000 for a student. 

Rovner: I think they’ve said the goal is that they want to push — they want to force down tuition. 

Sununu: Well, the government forced up tuition. That’s a whole different conversation. 

Cooper: They’re going to force out med students is what they’re going to do. 

Sununu: Look, I’ll be the devil’s advocate$150,000 for primary care, for example. If you’re a primary care — any medical degree, yeah. I don’t know what the thought process is other than they’re probably saying, well, these doctors, once you get your degree, you’re making a heck of a lot of money. These guys can pay stuff off. Let’s move that tuition or scholarship money to the social workers, to the MLADCs, to the community colleges, because that’s where you find more low-income families that can’t pay even $7- or $10,000 at a community college. That’s the real barrier. Low-income families as opposed to, look, giving $150,000, that’s a lot of money. And if these guys — if there’s anyone in America that can actually pay off college debt, it’s a doctor. So I’m being a little bit devil’s advocate because I don’t know the heart of the program, but that’s a heck of a lot of money and that’s a lot more tuition and scholarship funds than any other profession in the country. So I think it’s just about finding a balance. I am being a little devil’s advocate because I don’t know the details. 

Rovner: All right, I think I have time for one more question. 

Speaker: I’m a CFO at an ACO [accountable care organization] in Nebraska, and if I have to brag, our per cost, per beneficiaries, under $10,000 per reported on the latest 2023 numbers. Can you speak to the administration’s thought on value-based care contracting? And I know in Project 2025 it was referenced that — you’re laughing. 

Sununu: No, I hate hearing those words. 

Speaker: I did dig into that. And it is talked about to be attacked, value-based care contracts moving forward. So I was hoping that you could speak to that, maybe the intention of this administration, so thanks. 

Cooper: You want to talk about the intent of this administration? 

Sebelius: I’m not going to speak about this administration. You can speak about that. 

Sununu: No, I have no idea what the intent was. And every time I hear Project 2025 I shudder because it’s like, ah, I hate that thing. But, I don’t know why. 

Speaker: No not why but for behind the scenes do you think there’s still support for— 

Sebelius: I can tell you it’s one of the areas I think there’s huge bipartisan support inside Congress. So folks have come after it often from the health system because they really didn’t — they’d much rather, in some cases, have the fee-for-service payment. If I operate, I want to get my money. If I’m an anesthesiologist, I want to get my money. So value-based care really began to shake up the health system itself, health providers. I don’t know what this administration intends to do, but I know Congress has really wrapped their arms around value-based care and is really pushing the administrative agencies inside D.C. to continue and go faster. Bundled care for an operation where you put all the providers together and look at outcome. A lot of things that the ACOs are doing, congratulations. But that notion didn’t even exist before 2010, and I think it is absolutely on a trajectory now that it’s not going to go back. 

Sununu: And I’ll add this: As kooky as your successor is, the current HHS secretary, because he’s kooky, he’s not on board, either. So I think, again, regardless of what the administration wants, I don’t think that— 

Sebelius: Oh, not on board with getting rid of that. 

Sununu: Yeah, exactly. Not on board with getting— 

Sebelius: I just wanted to clarify. 

Sununu: I don’t think there’s going to be changes. I don’t think Congress is there. I don’t think the current secretary is there. I don’t know where the current secretary is on a lot of different things. He seems to change his mind quite often, but just don’t eat the red dye and you’ll be fine. 

Sebelius: But it’s one of the few places I would say— 

Cooper: Is there anything in the BBB [Big Beautiful Bill] on that? 

Rovner: We are officially out of time before Gov. Sununu gets himself into more trouble. I want to thank the panel so much and thank you to the audience, and enjoy your time at Aspen. 

OK. That’s our show for this week. As always, if you enjoyed the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcast. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our producer, Francis Ying, holding down the fort in Washington, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, here on the ground with me in Aspen. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, all one word. Or you can tweet me. I’m @jrovner. Or on Bluesky, @julierovner. We’ll be back in your feed from Washington next week. Until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

“We are full of people who come from other countries,” Goodness, 92, said about Goodwin House Alexandria’s staff. Without them, the retired Episcopal priest said, “I would be, and my building would be, desolate.”

The long-term health care industry is facing a double whammy from President Donald Trump’s crackdown on immigrants and the GOP’s proposals to reduce Medicaid spending. The industry is highly dependent on foreign workers: More than 800,000 immigrants and naturalized citizens comprise 28% of direct care employees at home care agencies, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and other long-term care companies.

But in January, the Trump administration rescinded former President Joe Biden’s 2021 policy that protected health care facilities from Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. The administration’s broad immigration crackdown threatens to drastically reduce the number of current and future workers for the industry. “People may be here on a green card, and they are afraid ICE is going to show up,” said Katie Smith Sloan, president of LeadingAge, an association of nonprofits that care for older adults.

Existing staffing shortages and quality-of-care problems would be compounded by other policies pushed by Trump and the Republican-led Congress, according to nursing home officials, resident advocates, and academic experts. Federal spending cuts under negotiation may strip nursing homes of some of their largest revenue sources by limiting ways states leverage Medicaid money and making it harder for new nursing home residents to retroactively qualify for Medicaid. Care for 6 in 10 residents is paid for by Medicaid, the state-federal health program for poor or disabled Americans.

“We are facing the collision of two policies here that could further erode staffing in nursing homes and present health outcome challenges,” said Eric Roberts, an associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

The industry hasn’t recovered from covid-19, which killed more than 200,000 long-term care facility residents and workers and led to massive staff attrition and turnover. Nursing homes have struggled to replace licensed nurses, who can find better-paying jobs at hospitals and doctors’ offices, as well as nursing assistants, who can earn more working at big-box stores or fast-food joints. Quality issues that preceded the pandemic have expanded: The percentage of nursing homes that federal health inspectors cited for putting residents in jeopardy of immediate harm or death has risen alarmingly from 17% in 2015 to 28% in 2024.

In addition to seeking to reduce Medicaid spending, congressional Republicans have proposed shelving the biggest nursing home reform in decades: a Biden-era rule mandating minimum staffing levels that would require most of the nation’s nearly 15,000 nursing homes to hire more workers.

The long-term care industry expects demand for direct care workers to burgeon with an influx of aging baby boomers needing professional care. The Census Bureau has projected the number of people 65 and older would grow from 63 million this year to 82 million in 2050.

In an email, Vianca Rodriguez Feliciano, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, said the agency “is committed to supporting a strong, stable long-term care workforce” and “continues to work with states and providers to ensure quality care for older adults and individuals with disabilities.” In a separate email, Tricia McLaughlin, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, said foreigners wanting to work as caregivers “need to do that by coming here the legal way” but did not address the effect on the long-term care workforce of deportations of classes of authorized immigrants.

Goodwin Living, a faith-based nonprofit, runs three retirement communities in northern Virginia for people who live independently, need a little assistance each day, have memory issues, or require the availability of around-the-clock nurses. It also operates a retirement community in Washington, D.C. Medicare rates Goodwin House Alexandria as one of the best-staffed nursing homes in the country. Forty percent of the organization’s 1,450 employees are foreign-born and are either seeking citizenship or are already naturalized, according to Lindsay Hutter, a Goodwin spokesperson.

“As an employer, we see they stay on with us, they have longer tenure, they are more committed to the organization,” said Rob Liebreich, Goodwin’s president and CEO.

Jackline Conteh spent much of her youth shuttling between Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Ghana to avoid wars and tribal conflicts. Her mother was killed by a stray bullet in her home country of Liberia, Conteh said. “She was sitting outside,” Conteh, 56, recalled in an interview.

Conteh was working as a nurse in a hospital in Sierra Leone in 2009 when she learned of a lottery for visas to come to the United States. She won, though she couldn’t afford to bring her husband and two children along at the time. After she got a nursing assistant certification, Goodwin hired her in 2012.

Conteh said taking care of elders is embedded in the culture of African families. When she was 9, she helped feed and dress her grandmother, a job that rotated among her and her sisters. She washed her father when he was dying of prostate cancer. Her husband joined her in the United States in 2017; she cares for him because he has heart failure.

“Nearly every one of us from Africa, we know how to care for older adults,” she said.

Her daughter is now in the United States, while her son is still in Africa. Conteh said she sends money to him, her mother-in-law, and one of her sisters.

In the nursing home where Goodness and 89 other residents live, Conteh helps with daily tasks like dressing and eating, checks residents’ skin for signs of swelling or sores, and tries to help them avoid falling or getting disoriented. Of 102 employees in the building, broken up into eight residential wings called “small houses” and a wing for memory care, at least 72 were born abroad, Hutter said.

Donald Goodness grew up in Rochester, New York, and spent 25 years as rector of The Church of the Ascension in New York City, retiring in 1997. He and his late wife moved to Alexandria to be closer to their daughter, and in 2011 they moved into independent living at the Goodwin House. In 2023 he moved into one of the skilled nursing small houses, where Conteh started caring for him.

“I have a bad leg and I can’t stand on it very much, or I’d fall over,” he said. “She’s in there at 7:30 in the morning, and she helps me bathe.” Goodness said Conteh is exacting about cleanliness and will tell the housekeepers if his room is not kept properly.

Conteh said Goodness was withdrawn when he first arrived. “He don’t want to come out, he want to eat in his room,” she said. “He don’t want to be with the other people in the dining room, so I start making friends with him.”

She showed him a photo of Sierra Leone on her phone and told him of the weather there. He told her about his work at the church and how his wife did laundry for the choir. The breakthrough, she said, came one day when he agreed to lunch with her in the dining room. Long out of his shell, Goodness now sits on the community’s resident council and enjoys distributing the mail to other residents on his floor.

“The people that work in my building become so important to us,” Goodness said.

While Trump’s 2024 election campaign focused on foreigners here without authorization, his administration has broadened to target those legally here, including refugees who fled countries beset by wars or natural disasters. This month, the Department of Homeland Security revoked the work permits for migrants and refugees from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela who arrived under a Biden-era program.

“I’ve just spent my morning firing good, honest people because the federal government told us that we had to,” Rachel Blumberg, president of the Toby & Leon Cooperman Sinai Residences of Boca Raton, a Florida retirement community, said in a video posted on LinkedIn. “I am so sick of people saying that we are deporting people because they are criminals. Let me tell you, they are not all criminals.”

At Goodwin House, Conteh is fearful for her fellow immigrants. Foreign workers at Goodwin rarely talk about their backgrounds. “They’re scared,” she said. “Nobody trusts anybody.” Her neighbors in her apartment complex fled the U.S. in December and returned to Sierra Leone after Trump won the election, leaving their children with relatives.

“If all these people leave the United States, they go back to Africa or to their various countries, what will become of our residents?” Conteh asked. “What will become of our old people that we’re taking care of?”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

@alicemiranda.bsky.social

Read Alice's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

@SandhyaWrites.bsky.social

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

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

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Supreme Court Upholds Bans on Gender-Affirming Care

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Friday, June 20, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Sandhya Raman: Good morning. 

Rovner: And Victoria Knight of Axios News. 

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone. 

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

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

Rovner: Which feels a little odd. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raman: Yes, or— 

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

Raman: Yeah. 

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

Raman: Yes. 

Rovner: Right. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: And older people. 

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

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

Knight: Exactly. It was very bipartisan. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Yeah. Not scary much. Sandhya. 

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

Rovner: Oh, sigh. 

Raman: Yeah. 

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Alice. 

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

Rovner: Victoria. 

Knight: I am @victoriaregisk on X. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

After explicitly promising senators during his confirmation hearing that he would not interfere in scientific policy over which Americans should receive which vaccines, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. this week fired every member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the group of experts who help the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention make those evidence-based judgments. Kennedy then appointed new members, including vaccine skeptics, prompting alarm from the broader medical community.

Meanwhile, over at the National Institutes of Health, some 300 employees — many using their full names — sent a letter of dissent to the agency’s director, Jay Bhattacharya, saying the administration’s policies “undermine the NIH mission, waste our public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.”

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, and Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine.

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg News

@annaedney

@annaedney.bsky.social

Read Anna's stories.

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

@sarahkarlin-smith.bsky.social

Read Sarah's stories.

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

@joannekenen.bsky.social

Read Joanne's bio.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• After removing all 17 members of the vaccine advisory committee, Kennedy on Wednesday announced eight picks to replace them — several of whom lack the expertise to vet vaccine research and at least a couple who have spoken out against vaccines. Meanwhile, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, the Republican head of the chamber’s health committee, has said little, despite the fact that Kennedy’s actions violate a promise he made to Cassidy during his confirmation hearing not to touch the vaccine panel.
• In other vaccine news, the Department of Health and Human Services has canceled private-sector contracts exploring the use of mRNA technology in developing vaccines for bird flu and HIV. The move raises concerns about the nation’s readiness against developing and potentially devastating health threats.
• Hundreds of NIH employees took the striking step of signing a letter known as the “Bethesda Declaration,” protesting Trump administration policies that they say undermine the agency’s resources and mission. It is rare for federal workers to use their own names to voice public objections to an administration, let alone President Donald Trump’s, signaling the seriousness of their concerns.
• Lawmakers have been considering adding Medicare changes to the tax-and-spend budget reconciliation legislation now before the Senate — specifically, targeting the use of what’s known as “upcoding.” Curtailing the practice, through which medical providers effectively inflate diagnoses and procedures to charge more, has bipartisan support and could increase the savings by reducing the amount the government pays for care.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum and former director of the Congressional Budget Office, to discuss how the CBO works and why it’s so controversial.

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

Julie Rovner: Stat’s “Lawmakers Lobby Doctors To Keep Quiet — or Speak Up — on Medicaid Cuts in Trump’s Tax Bill,” by Daniel Payne.  

Anna Edney: KFF Health News’ “Two Patients Faced Chemo. The One Who Survived Demanded a Test To See if It Was Safe,” by Arthur Allen.  

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Wired’s “The Bleach Community Is Ready for RFK Jr. To Make Their Dreams Come True,” by David Gilbert.  

Joanne Kenen: ProPublica’s “DOGE Developed Error-Prone AI Tool To ‘Munch’ Veterans Affairs Contracts,” by Brandon Roberts, Vernal Coleman, and Eric Umansky.  

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The Hill’s “Cassidy in a Bind as RFK Jr. Blows Up Vaccine Policy,” by Nathaniel Weixel.
• JAMA Pediatrics’ “Firearm Laws and Pediatric Mortality in the US,” by Jeremy Samuel Faust, Ji Chen, and Shriya Bhat.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: RFK Jr. Upends Vaccine Policy, After Promising He Wouldn’t

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, June 12, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

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

Anna Edney: Hi, everybody. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hello, everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with Douglas Holtz-Eakin, head of the American Action Forum and former head of the Congressional Budget Office. Doug will talk about what it is that CBO actually does and why it’s the subject of so many slings and arrows. But first, this week’s news. 

The biggest health news this week is out of the Department of Health and Human Services, where Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monday summarily fired all 17 members of the CDC’s [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s] vaccine advisory committee, something he expressly promised Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy he wouldn’t do, in exchange for Cassidy’s vote to confirm him last winter. Sarah, remind us what this committee does and why it matters who’s on it? 

Karlin-Smith: So, they’re a committee that advises CDC on who should use various vaccines approved in the U.S., and their recommendations translate, assuming they’re accepted by the CDC, to whether vaccines are covered by most insurance plans and also reimbursed. There’s various laws that we have that set out, that require coverage of vaccines recommended by the ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] and so forth. So without ACIP recommendations, you may — vaccines could be available in the U.S. but extremely unaffordable for many people. 

Rovner: Right, because they’ll be uncovered. 

Karlin-Smith: Correct. Your insurance company may choose not to reimburse them. 

Rovner: And just to be clear, this is separate from the FDA’s [Food and Drug Administration’s] actual approval of the vaccines and the acknowledgment it’s safe and effective. Right, Anna? 

Edney: Yeah, there are two different roles here. So the FDA looks at all the safety and effectiveness data and decides whether it’s safe to come to market. And with ACIP, they are deciding whether these are things that children or adults or pregnant women, different categories of people, should be getting on a regular basis. 

Rovner: So Wednesday afternoon, Secretary Kennedy named eight replacements to the committee, including several with known anti-vaccine views. I suppose that’s what we all expected, kind of? 

Kenen: He also shrunk it, so there are fewer voices. The old panel, I believe, had 17. And the law says it has to have at least eight, and he appointed eight. As far as we know, that’s all he’s appointing. But who knows? A couple of more could straggle in. But as of now, it means there’s less viewpoints, less voices, which may or might not turn out to be a good thing. But it is a different committee in every respect. 

Edney: And I think it is a bit of what we expected in the sense that these are people who either are outright vaccine critics or, in a case or two, have actually said vaccines do horrible things to people. One of them had said before that the covid vaccine caused an AIDS-like virus in people. And there is a nurse that is part of the committee now that said her son was harmed by vaccines. And not saying that is or isn’t true — her concerns could be valid — but that she very much has worked to question vaccines. 

So I think it is the committee that we maybe would’ve expected from a sense of, I think he’s trying to bring in people who are a little bit mainstream, in the sense if you looked at where they worked or things like that, you might not say, like: Oh, Georgetown University. I get it. But they are people who have taken kind of the more of a fringe approach within maybe kind of a mainstream world. 

Karlin-Smith: I was going to say there’s also many people on the list that it’s just not even clear to me why you would look at their expertise and think, Oh, this is a committee they should serve on. One of the people is an MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology], essentially, like, business school professor who tangentially I think has worked on health policy to some extent. But, right, this is not somebody who has extreme expertise in vaccinology, immunology, and so forth. You have a psychiatrist whose expertise seems to be on nutrition and brain health. 

And one thing I think people don’t always appreciate about this committee at CDC is, you see them in these public meetings that happen a few times a year, but they do a lot of work behind the scenes to actually go through data and make these recommendations. And so having less people and having people that don’t actually have the expertise to do this work seems like it could cause a big problem just from that point of view. 

Edney: And that can be the issue that comes up when Kennedy has said, I don’t want anyone with any conflicts of interest. Well, we’ve talked about this. Certainly you don’t want a legit conflict of interest, but a lot of people who are going to have the expertise you need may have a perceived conflict that he doesn’t want on there. So you end up maybe with somebody who works in operations instead of on vaccines. 

Rovner: You mean maybe we’ll have people who actually have researched vaccines. 

Edney: Right. Exactly. Yeah. 

Kenen: The MIT guy is an expert in supply chains. None of us know who the best supply chain business school professor is in the world. Maybe it’s him, but it’s a very odd placement. 

Rovner: Well, so far Sen. Cassidy hasn’t said very much other than to kind of communicate that he’s not happy right now. Has anybody heard anything further? The secretary has been sort of walking up to the line of things he told the senator he wouldn’t do, but this clearly is over the line of things he told the senator he wouldn’t do. And now it’s done. 

Kenen: It’s like over the line and he set fire to it. And Cassidy has been pretty quiet. And in fact, when Kennedy testified before Cassidy — Cassidy is the chairman of the health committee — a couple of weeks ago, he gave him a really warm greeting and thanked him for coming and didn’t say: You’re a month late. I wanted you here last month. The questions were very soft. And things have only gotten more heated since then, with the dissolution of the ACIP committee and this reconstitution of it. And he’s been very quiet for somebody who publicly justified, who publicly wrestled with this, the confirmation, was the deciding vote, and then has been really soft since then — in public. 

Rovner: I sent around a story this morning to the panelists, from The Hill, which I will link to in the show notes, that quotes a political science professor in Louisiana pointing out that perhaps it would be better for Cassidy politically not to say anything, that perhaps public opinion among Republicans who will vote in a primary is more on the side of Secretary Kennedy than Sen. Cassidy, which raises some interesting questions. 

Edney: Yeah. And I think that, at least for me, I’m at the point of wondering if Cassidy didn’t know that all along, that there’s a point he was willing to go up to but a line that he is never going to have been willing to cross, and that is actually coming out against Kennedy and, therefore, [President Donald] Trump. He doesn’t want to lose his reelection. I am starting to wonder if he just hoped it wouldn’t come to this and so was able to say those things that got him to vote for Kennedy and then hope that it wouldn’t happen. 

And I think that was a lot of people. They weren’t on the line like Cassidy was, but I think a lot of people thought, Oh, nothing’s ever going to happen on this. And I think another thing I’m learning as I cover this administration and the Kennedy HHS is when they say, Don’t worry about it, look away, we’re not doing anything that big of a deal, that’s when you have to worry about it. And when they make a big deal about some policy they’re bringing up, it actually means they’re not really doing a lot on it. So I think we’re seeing that with vaccines for sure. 

Rovner: Yes, classic watch what they do not what they say. 

Kenen: But if you’re Cassidy and you already voted to impeach President Trump, which means you already have a target from the right — he’s a conservative, but it’s from the more conservative, though, the more MAGA [Make America Great Again] — if you do something mavericky, sometimes the best political line is to continue doing it. But they’ve also changed the voting rules, my understanding is, in Louisiana so that independents are — they used to be able to cross party lines in the primaries, and I believe you can’t do that anymore. So that also changed, and that’s recent, so that might have been what he thought might save him. 

Rovner: Well, it’s not just ACIP where Secretary Kennedy is insinuating himself directly into vaccine policy. HHS has also canceled a huge contract with vaccine maker Moderna, which was working on an mRNA-based bird flu vaccine, which we might well need in the near future, and they’ve also canceled trials of potential HIV vaccines. What do we know about what this HHS is doing in terms of vaccine policy? 

Karlin-Smith: The bird flu contract I think is very concerning because it seems to go along the lines of many people in this administration and Kennedy’s orbit who sometimes might seem a little bit OK with vaccines, more OK than Kennedy’s record, is they are very anti the newer mRNA technology, which we know proved very effective in saving tens of millions of lives. I was looking at some data just even the first year they rolled out after covid. So we know they work. Obviously, like all medical interventions, there are some side effects. But again, the benefits outweigh the risks. And this is the only, really, technology that we have that could really get us vaccines really quickly in a pandemic and bird flu. 

Really, the fear there is that if it were to jump to humans and really spread from human-to-human transmission — we have had some cases recently — it could be much more devastating than a pandemic like covid. And so not having the government have these relationships with companies who could produce products at a particular speed would be probably incredibly devastating, given the other technologies we have to invest in. 

Edney: I think Kennedy has also showed us that he, and spoken about this, is that he is much more interested in a cure for anything. He has talked about measles and Why can’t we just treat it better? And we’re seeing that with the HIV vaccine that won’t be going forward in the same way, is that the administration has basically said: We have the tools to deal with it if somebody gets it. We’re just not going to worry about vaccinating as much. And so I think that this is a little bit in that vein as well. 

Rovner: So the heck with prevention, basically. 

Edney: Exactly. 

Rovner: Well, in related news, some 300 employees of the National Institutes of Health, including several institute directors, this week sent an open letter of dissent to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya that they are calling the “Bethesda Declaration.” That’s a reference to the “Great Barrington Declaration” that the NIH director helped spearhead back in 2020 that protested covid lockdowns and NIH’s handling of the science. 

The Bethesda Declaration protests policies that the signatories say, quote, “undermine the NIH mission, waste our public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.” Here’s how one of the signers, Jenna Norton of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, put it in a YouTube video. 

Jenna Norton: And the NIH that I’m working in now is unrecognizable to me. Every day I go into the office and I wonder what ethical boundary I’m going to be asked to violate, what probably illegal action am I going to be asked to take. And it’s just soul-crushing. And that’s one of the reasons that I’m signing this letter. One of my co-signers said this, but I’m going to quote them because I thought it was so powerful: “You get another job, but you cannot get another soul.” 

Rovner: I’ve been covering NIH for a lot of years. I can’t remember pushback like this against an administration by its own scientists, even during the height of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s. How serious is this? And is it likely to have any impact on policy going forward? 

Edney: I think if you’re seeing a good amount of these signers who sign their actual names and if you’re seeing that in the government, something is very serious and there are huge concerns, I think, because, as a journalist, I try to reach people who work in the government all the time. And if they’re not in the press office, if they speak to me, which is rare, even they do not want me to use their name. They do not want to be identified in any way, because there are repercussions for that. 

And especially with this administration, I’m sure that there is some fear for people’s jobs and in some instances maybe even beyond. But I think that whether there will be any policy changes, that is a little less clear, how this administration might take that to heart or listen to what they’re saying. 

Rovner: Bhattacharya was in front of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee this week and was asked about it, but only sort of tangentially. I was a little bit surprised that — obviously, Republicans, we just talked about Sen. Cassidy, they are afraid to go up against the Trump administration’s choices for some of these jobs — but I was surprised that even some of the Democrats seemed a little bit hands-off. 

Edney: Yeah, no one ever asks the questions I want asked at hearings, I have to say. I’m always screaming. Yeah, exactly. I’m always like: No. What are you doing? 

Rovner: That’s exactly how I was, like: No, ask him this. 

Edney: Right. 

Rovner: Don’t ask him that. 

Edney: Exactly. 

Rovner: Well, moving on to the Big Budget Bill, which is my new name for it. Everybody else seems to have a different one. It’s still not clear when the Senate will actually take up its parts, particularly those related to health, but it is clear that it’s not just Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act on the table but now Medicare, too. Ironically, it feels like lawmakers could more easily squeeze savings out of Medicare without hurting beneficiaries than either Medicaid or the ACA, or is that just me being too simplistic about this whole thing? 

Kenen: The Medicare bill is targeted at upcoding, which means insurers or providers sort of describing a symptom or an illness in the most severe terms possible and they get paid more. And everybody in government is actually against that. Everybody ends up paying more. I don’t know what else the small —this has just bubbled up — but I don’t know if there’s other small print. 

This alone, if it wasn’t tied to all the politics of everything else in this bill, this is the kind of thing, if you really do a bill that attacks inflated medical bills, you could probably get bipartisan support for. But because — and, again, I don’t know what else is in, and I know that’s the top line. There may be something that I’m not aware of that is more of a poison pill. But that issue you could get bipartisan consensus on. 

But it’s folded into this horrendously contentious thing. And it’s easy to say, Oh, they’re trying to cut Medicare, which in this case maybe they’re trying to cut it in a way that is smart, but it just makes it more complicated. If they do go for it, if they do decide that this goes in there, it could create a little more wiggle room to not cut some other things quite as deeply. 

But again, they’re calling everything waste, fraud, and abuse. None of us would say there is no waste, fraud, and abuse in government or in health care. We all know there is waste, fraud, and abuse, but that doesn’t mean that what they’re cutting here is waste, fraud, and abuse in other aspects of that bill. 

Rovner: Although, as you say, I think there’s bipartisan consensus, including from Mehmet Oz, who runs Medicare, that upcoding is waste and fraud. 

Kenen: Right. But other things in the bill are being called waste, fraud, and abuse that are not, right? That there’s things in Medicaid that are not waste, fraud, and abuse. They’re just changing the rules. But I agree with you, Julie. I think that in a bill that is not so fraught, it would’ve been easier to get consensus on this particular item, assuming it’s a clean upcoding bill, if you did it in a different way. 

Rovner: And also, there’s already a bipartisan bill on pharmacy benefit managers kicking around. There are a lot of things that Congress could do on a bipartisan basis to reduce the cost of Medicare and make the program better and shore it up, and that doesn’t seem to be what’s happening, for the most part. 

Well, we continue to learn things about the House-passed bill that we didn’t know before, and one thing we learned this week that I think bears discussing comes from a new poll from our KFF polling unit that found that nearly half those who purchased Affordable Care Act coverage from the marketplaces are Republicans, including a significant percentage who identify themselves as MAGA Republicans. 

So it’s not just Republicans in the Medicaid expansion population who’d be impacted. Millions of Trump supporters could end up losing or being priced out of their ACA insurance, too, particularly in non-Medicaid-expansion states like Florida and Texas. A separate poll from Quinnipiac this week finds that only 27% of respondents think Congress should pass the big budget reconciliation bill. Could either of these things change some Republican perceptions of things in this bill, or is it just too far down the train tracks at this point? 

Karlin-Smith: We saw a few weeks ago [Sen.] Joni Ernst seemed to be really highly critical of her own supporters who were pushing back on her support for the bill. Even when Republicans failed to get rid of the ACA and [Sen.] John McCain gave it the thumbs-down, he was the one. It wasn’t like everyone else was coming to help him with that. 

And again, I think there was the same dynamic where a lot of people who, if you had asked them did they support Obamacare while it was being written in law, in early days before they saw any benefit of it, would have said no and politically align themselves with the Republican Party, and their views have come to realize, once you get a benefit, that it may actually be more desirable, perhaps, than you initially thought. 

I think it could become a problem for them, but I don’t think it’s going to be a mass group of Republicans are going to change their minds over this. 

Rovner: Or are they going to figure out that that’s why they’re losing their coverage? 

Kenen: Right. Many things in this bill, if it goes into effect, are actually after the 2026 elections. The ACA stuff is earlier. And someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure it expires in time for the next enrollment season. 

Rovner: Yeah, and we’ve talked about this before. The expanded credits, which are not sort of quote-unquote— 

Kenen: No, they’re separate. 

Rovner: —“in this bill,” but it’s the expiration of those that’s going to cause— 

Kenen: In September. And so those— 

Rovner: Right. 

Kenen: —people would— 

Rovner: In December. No, at the end of the year they expire. 

Kenen: Right. So that in 2026, people getting the expanded benefit. And there’s also somewhat of a misunderstanding that that legislation opened Obamacare subsidies to people further up the eligibility roof, so more people who had more money but still couldn’t afford insurance do get subsidies. That goes away, but it cascades down. It affects lower-income people. It affects other people. It’s not just that income bracket. 

There are sort of ripple effects through the entire subsidized population. So people will lose their coverage. There’s really no dispute about that. The reason it was sunsetted is because it costs money. Congress does that a lot. If we do it for five years, we can get it on the score that we need out of the CBO. But if we do it for 10 years, we can’t. So that is not an unusual practice in Congress for Republicans and Democrats, but that happens before the election. 

It’s just whether people connect the dots and whether there are enough of them to make a difference in an election, right? Millions of people across the country. But does it change how people vote in a specific race in a state that’s already red? If it’s a very red state, it may not make people get mad, but it may not affect who gets elected to House or the Senate in 2026. 

Rovner: We will see. So Sarah, I was glad you mentioned Sen. Ernst, because last week we talked about her comment that we’re all going to die, in response to complaints at a town hall meeting about the Medicaid cuts. Well, Medicare and Medicaid chief Mehmet Oz says to Sen. Ernst, Hold my beer. Speaking on Fox Business, Oz said people should only get Medicaid if they, quote, “prove that they matter.” 

Now, this was in the context of saying that if you want Medicaid, you should work or go to school. Of course, most people on Medicaid do work or care-give for someone who can’t work or do go to school — they just have jobs that don’t come with private health insurance. I can’t help but think this is kind of a big hole in the Republican talking points that we keep seeing. These members keep suggesting that all working people or people going to school get health insurance, and that’s just not the case. 

Kenen: But it sounds good. 

Karlin-Smith: I was going to say, there are small employers that don’t have to provide coverage under the ACA. There are people that have sort of churned because they work part time or can’t quite get enough hours to qualify, and these are often lower-income people. And I think the other thing I’ve seen people, especially in the disability committee and so forth, raises — there’s an underlying rhetoric here that to get health care, you have to be deserving and to be working. 

That, I think, is starting to raise concerns, because even though they kind of say they’re not attacking that population that gets Medicaid, I think there is some concern about the language that they’re using is placing a value on people’s lives that just sort of undermines those that legitimately cannot work, for no fault of their own. 

Kenen: It’s how the Republicans have begun talking about Medicaid again. Public opinion, and KFF has had some really interesting polls on this over the last few years, really interesting changes in public attitudes toward Medicaid, much more popular. And it’s thought of even by many Republicans as a health care program, not a welfare program. What you have seen — and that’s a change. 

What you’ve seen in the last couple of months is Republican leaders, notably Speaker [Mike] Johnson, really talking about this as welfare. And it’s very reminiscent of the Reagan years, the concept of the deserving poor that goes back decades. But we haven’t heard it as much that these are the people who deserve our help and these are the lazy bums or the cheats. 

Speaker Johnson didn’t call them lazy bums and cheats, but there’s this concept of some people deserve our help and the rest of them, tough luck. They don’t deserve it. And so that’s a change in the rhetoric. And talking about waste and talking about fraud and talking about abuse is creating the impression that it’s rampant, that there’s this huge abuse, and that’s not the case. People are vetted for Medicaid and they do qualify for Medicaid. 

States have their own money and their own enrollment systems. They have every incentive to not cover people who don’t deserve to be covered. Again, none of us are saying there’s zero waste. We would never say that. None of us are saying there’s zero abuse. But it’s not like that’s the defining characteristic of Medicaid is that it’s all fraud and abuse, and that you can cut hundreds of millions of dollars out of it without anybody feeling any pain. 

Rovner: And there were a lot of Republican states that expanded Medicaid, even when they didn’t have to, that are going to feel this. That’s a whole other issue that I think we will talk about probably in the weeks to come. I want to move to DOGE [the Department of Government Efficiency]. Elon Musk is back in California, having had a very ugly breakup with President Trump and possibly a partial reconciliation. But the impact of DOGE continues across the federal government, as well as at HHS. 

The latest news is apparently hundreds of CDC employees who were told that they were being laid off who are now being told: Never mind. Come back to work. Of course, this news comes weeks after they were told they were being fired, and it’s unclear how many of them have upended their work and family lives in the interim. 

But at the same time, much of the money that’s supposed to be flowing, appropriations for the current fiscal year that were passed by Congress and signed by President Trump — apparently still being held up. What are you guys hearing about how things at HHS are or aren’t going in the wake of the DOGE cutbacks? Go ahead, Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: It still seems like people at the federal government that I talked to are incredibly unhappy. At other agencies, as well, there have been groups of people called back to work, including at FDA. But still, I think the general sense is there’s a lot of chaos. People aren’t comfortable that their job will be there long-term. Many people even who were called back are saying they’re still looking for work other places. 

There’s just so many changes in both, I think, in their day-to-day lives and how they do their job, but then also philosophically in terms of policy and what they are allowed to do, that I think a lot of people are becoming kind of demoralized and trying to figure out: Can they do what they signed up to do in their job, or is it better just to move on? And I think there’s going to be long-term consequences for a lot of these government agencies. 

Rovner: You mean being fired and unfired and refired doesn’t make for a happy workplace? 

Karlin-Smith: I was going to say a lot of them were called back to offices that they didn’t always have to come to. They’ve lost people who have been working and never lost their jobs, have lost close colleagues, support staff they rely on to do their jobs. So it’s really complicated even if you’re in the best-case scenario, I think, at a lot of these agencies. 

Kenen: And a loss of institutional memory, too, because nobody knows everything in your office. And in an office that functions, it’s collaborative. I know this, you know that. We work together, and we come out with a better product. So that’s been eviscerated. And then — we’re all in a part of an industry that’s seen a lot of downsizing and chaos, in journalism, and the outcome is worse. When things get beaten up and battered and kicked out, things are harmed. And it’s true of any industry, since we haven’t been AI-replaced yet. 

Rovner: Yet. So it’s been a while since we had a, quote, “This Week in Private Equity in Health Care,” but this week the governor of Oregon signed into law a pretty serious ban on private equity ownership of physician practices. Apparently, this was prompted by the purchase by Optum — that’s the arm of UnitedHealth that is now the largest owner of physician practices in the U.S. — of a multi-specialty group in Eugene, Oregon, that caused significant dislocation for patients and was charged by the state with impermissibly raising prices. Hospitals are not included in Oregon’s ban, but I wonder if this is the start of a trend. Or is this a one-off in a pretty blue state, which Oregon is? 

Edney: I think that it could be. I don’t know, certainly, but I think to watch how it plays out might be quite interesting. The problem with private equity ownership of these doctors’ offices is then the doctors don’t feel that they can actually give good care. They’ve got to move people through. It’s all about how much money can they make or save so that private equity can get its reward. And so I think that people certainly are frustrated by it, as in people who get the care, also people who are doing legislating and things like that. So I wouldn’t be surprised to see some other attempts at this pop up now that we’ve seen one. 

Kenen: But Oregon is uniquely placed to get something like this through. They are a very blue state. They’ve got a history of some health reform stuff that’s progressive. I don’t think you’ll see this domino-ing through every state legislature in the short term. 

Rovner: But I will also say that even in Oregon, it took a while to get this through. There was a lot of pushback because there is concern that without private equity, maybe some of these practices are going to go belly up. This is the continuing fight about the future of the health care workforce and who’s going to underwrite it. 

Well, finally this week, I want to give a shoutout to the biggest cause of childhood death and injury that is not being currently addressed by HHS, which is gun violence. According to a new study in JAMA Pediatrics, firearms deaths among children and teens grew significantly in states that loosened gun laws following a major Supreme Court decision in 2010. And it wasn’t just accidents. The increase in deaths included homicides and suicides, too. Yet gun violence seems to have kind of disappeared from the national agenda for both parties. 

Edney: Yeah, you don’t hear as much about it. I don’t know why. I don’t know if it’s because we’re inundated every day with a million things. And currently at the moment, that just hasn’t come up again, as far as a tragedy. That often tends to bring it back to people’s front of mind. And I think that there is, on the Republican side at least, we’re seeing tax cuts for gun silencers and things like that. So I think they’re emboldened on the side of NRA [the National Rifle Association]. I don’t know if Democrats are seeing that and thinking it’s a losing battle. What else can I focus my attention on? 

Kenen: Well, it’s in the news when there’s a mass killing. Society has just sort of become inured or shut its eyes to the day to day to day to day to day. The accidents, the murders. Don’t forget, a lot of our suicide problem is guns, including older white men in rural states who are very pro-gun. Those who kill themselves, it is how they kill themselves. It’s just something we have let happen. 

Rovner: Plus, we’re now back to arguing about whether or not vaccines are worthwhile. So, a lot of the oxygen is being taken up with other issues at the moment. 

Kenen: There’s a very overcrowded bandwidth these days. Yes. 

Rovner: There is. I think that’s fair. All right, well, that is this week’s news, or as much as we could squeeze in. Now we will play my interview with Doug Holtz-Eakin, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, a center-right think tank, and former head of the Congressional Budget Office during the George W. Bush administration, when Republicans also controlled both Houses of Congress. Doug, thank you so much for being here. 

Douglas Holtz-Eakin: My pleasure. Thank you. 

Rovner: I mostly asked you here to talk about CBO and what it does and why it’s so controversial. But first, tell us about the American Action Forum and what it is you do now. 

Holtz-Eakin: So the American Action Forum is, on paper, a center-right think tank, a 501(c)(3) entity that does public education on policy issues, but it’s modeled on my experiences at working at the White House twice, running the Congressional Budget Office, and I was also director of domestic and economic policy on the John McCain campaign. And in those jobs, you worked on policy issues. You did policy education, issues, options, advice, but you worked on whatever was happening that day. 

You didn’t have the luxury of saying: Yeah, that’s not what I do. Get back to me when something interests you. And you had to convey your results in English to nonspecialists. So there was a sort of a premium on the communications function, and you also had to understand the politics. On a campaign you had to make good policy good politics, and at the White House you worried about the president’s program. 

No matter who was in Congress, that was all they thought about. And in Congress, the CBO is nonpartisan by law, and so obviously you have to care about that. And I just decided I like that work, and that’s what AAF does. We do domestic and economic policy on the issues that are going on in Congress or the agencies, with an emphasis on providing material that is readable to nonspecialists so they can understand what’s going on. 

Rovner: You’re a professional policy nerd, in other words. 

Holtz-Eakin: Pretty much, yeah. 

Rovner: As am I. So I don’t mean that in any way to be derogatory. I plead guilty myself. 

Holtz-Eakin: These bills, who knew? 

Rovner: Exactly. Well, let’s talk about the CBO, which, people may or may not know, was created along with the rest of the congressional budget process overhaul in 1974. What is CBO’s actual job? What is it that CBO is tasked to do? 

Holtz-Eakin: It has two jobs. Job number one, the one we’re hearing so much about now, is to estimate the budgetary impact of pieces of legislation being considered on the floor of the House or the Senate. So they call this scoring, and it is: How much will the bill change the flow of revenues into the Treasury and the flow of spending out of the Treasury year by year over what is currently 10 years? 

And you compare that to what would happen if you didn’t pass law, which is to say, leave the laws of land on autopilot and check out what happened to the budget then. So that’s what it’s doing now, and you get a lot of disagreement on the nature of that analysis. It also spends a lot of time doing studies for members of Congress on policies that Congress may have to be looking at in the future. 

And so anticipating the needs of Congress, studying things like Social Security reforms, which are coming, or different ways to do Medicaid reform if we decide to go down that route, and things that will prepare the Congress for future debates. 

Rovner: Obviously these scores are best guesses of people who spend a lot of time studying economic models. How accurate are CBO’s estimates? 

Holtz-Eakin: They’re wrong all the time, but that’s because predicting the future is really hard, and because when CBO does its estimates, it’s not permitted by law to anticipate future actions of Congress, and Congress is always doing something. That often changes the outcome down the road. Sometimes there are just unexpected events in the world. The pandemic was not something that was in the CBO baseline in 2019. And so, obviously, the numbers changed dramatically because of that. 

And also, because CBO is not really just trying to forecast. If that was all it was being asked to do, it might get closer sometimes, but what it’s really being asked to do is to be able to compare pieces of legislation. What’s the House bill look like compared to the Senate bill? And to do that, you have to keep the point of comparison, the so-called baseline, the same for as long as you’re doing this legislation. 

In some cases, that’s quite a long time. It was over two years for the Affordable Care Act. And by the time you’re at the end, the forecast is way out of date. But for consistency, you have to hold on to it. And then people say, Oh, you got the forecast wrong. But it’s the nature of what they’re being asked to do, which is to provide consistent scores that rank things appropriately, that can interfere with the just pure forecasting aspect. 

Rovner: And basically they’re the referee. It’s hard to imagine being able to do this process without having someone who acts as a referee, right? 

Holtz-Eakin: Well, yes. And in fact, sometimes you see them rush through and ignore CBO. And generally, that’s a sign that it’s not going well, because they really should take the time to understand the consequences of what they’re up to. 

Rovner: And how does that work? CBO, people get frustrated because this stuff doesn’t happen, like, overnight. They write a bill and there should be a CBO score the next day. But it’s not just fed into an AI algorithm, right? 

Holtz-Eakin: No. That’s a great misconception about CBO. People think there’s a model. You just put it in the model. You drop the legislation and out comes the numbers. And there are some things for which we have a very good feel because they’ve been done a lot. So change the matching rate in Medicaid and see what happens to spending — been done a lot. We understand that pretty well. 

Pass a Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, where the federal government provides a backstop to the private property and casualty insurance companies in the event there’s a terrorist attack at an unknown time in the future using an unknown weapon in an unknown location — there’s no model for that. You just have to read about extreme events, look at their financial consequences, imagine how much money the insurance companies would have, when they would round up money, and how much the federal government would be on the hook for. It’s not modeling. You’re asking CBO’s professionals to make informed budgetary judgments, and we pay them for their judgment. And I think that’s poorly understood. 

Rovner: So I’ve been at this since the late 1980s. I’ve seen a lot of CBO directors, Republican and Democrats, and my impression is that, to a person, they have tried very hard to play things as much down the middle as possible. Do you guys have strategy sessions to come up with ways to be as nonpartisan as you can? 

Holtz-Eakin: The truth is you just listen to the staff. I say this and I’m not sure people will fully appreciate it: Nonpartisanship is in the DNA of CBO, and I attribute this to the very first director, Alice Rivlin, and some of her immediate successors. They were interested in establishing the budget office, which had been invented in 1974, really got up and running a couple of years later, and they wanted to establish this credibility. 

And regardless of their own political leanings, they worked hard to put in place procedures and training of the staff that emphasized: There’s a research literature out there, go look at it. What’s the consensus in that research literature? Regardless of what you might think, what is it telling you about the impact of this program or this tax or whatever it might be? Bring that back. That’s what we’re going to do. 

Now we’ve done an estimate. Let’s go out at the end of the year and look at all our baseline estimates and look at what actually happened, compare the before and after. Oh my God. We’re really off. Why? What can we learn from that? And it’s a constant repetition of that. It’s been going on for a long time now and with just outstanding results, I think. CBO is a very professional place that has a very specialized job and does it real well. 

Rovner: So obviously, lawmakers have always complained about the CBO, because you always complain about the referee, particularly if they say something you don’t like or you disagree with. I feel like the criticism has gotten more heated in the last couple of years and that there’s been more of an effort to really undermine what it is that CBO does. 

Holtz-Eakin: I don’t know if I agree with that. That comes up a lot. It is certainly more pointed. I lay a lot of this at the feet of the president, who, when he first ran, introduced a very personal style campaigning. Everything is personal. He doesn’t have abstract policy arguments. He makes it about him versus someone else and usually gives that person a nickname, like “Rocket Boy” for the leader of North Korea, and sort of diminishes the virtues and skills of his opponent, in this case. 

So he says, like, that CBO is horrible. It’s a terrible place. That is more personal. That isn’t the nature of the attacks I receive, for example. But other than that, it’s the same, right? When CBO delivers good news, Congress says, God, we did a good job. When CBO delivers bad news, they say, God, CBO is terrible. And that’s been true for a long time. 

Rovner: And I imagine it will in the future. Doug Holtz-Eakin, thank you so much for being here and explaining all this. 

Holtz-Eakin: Thank you. 

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

Karlin-Smith: I took a look at a story in Wired by David Gilbert, “The Bleach Community Is Ready for RFK Jr. To Make Their Dreams Come True.” It’s a story about Kennedy’s past references to the use of chlorine dioxide and groups of people who were pushing for this use as kind of a cure-all for almost any condition you can think of. And one thing the author of this piece picked up on is that some of the FDA warnings not to do this, because it’s incredibly dangerous and can kill you — it is not going to cure any of the ailments described — have been taken off of the agency’s website recently, which seems a bit concerning. 

Now, FDA seems to suggest they did it because it’s just a few years old and they tend to archive posts after that. But if you read what happens to people who try and use bleach — or really it’s like even more concentrated product, essentially — it would be hard for me to understand why you would want to try this. But it is incredibly concerning to see these just really dangerous, unscientifically supported cures come back and get sort of more of a platform. 

Rovner: Yes. I guess we can’t talk about gun violence because we’re talking about drinking bleach. Anna. 

Edney: So mine is from KFF Health News, by Arthur Allen. It’s “Two Patients Faced Chemo. The One Who Survived Demanded a Test To See if It Was Safe.” And I found this starts off with a woman who needed chemo, and she got it and she started getting sores in her mouth and swelling around her eyes. And eventually she died a really painful, awful death, not from the cancer but from not being able to swallow or talk. And it was from the chemo. It was a reaction to the chemo, which I didn’t realize until I read this can, is a rare side effect that can happen. 

And there is a test for it. You can tell who might respond this way to chemo. And it doesn’t necessarily mean you wouldn’t get any chemo. You would instead maybe get lower doses, maybe different days of the week, things like that to try to help you not end up like this woman. And he also was able to talk to someone who knew about this and insisted on the test. And those were some of the calibrations that they made for her treatment. So I think it’s a great piece of public service journalism. It helps a lot of people be aware. 

Rovner: Super interesting. I had no idea until I read it, either. Joanne. 

Kenen: ProPublica, Brandon Roberts, Vernal Coleman, and Eric Umansky did a story called “DOGE Developed Error-Prone AI Tool to ‘Munch’ Veterans Affairs Contract.” And they had a related story that Julie can post that actually shows the code and the AI prompts, and you do not have to be very technically sophisticated to understand that there were some problems with those prompts. Basically, they had somebody who had no government experience and no health care experience writing really bad code and bad prompts. 

And we don’t know how many of the contracts were actually canceled, as opposed to flagged for canceling. There were things that they said were worth $34 million that weren’t needed. They were actually $35,000 and essential things that really pertain to patient care, including programs to improve nursing care were targeted. They were “munched,” which is not a word I had come across. So yes, it was everything you suspected and ProPublica documented it. 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a very vivid story. Well, my extra credit this week is from Stat, and it’s called “Lawmakers Lobby Doctors To Keep Quiet — or Speak Up — on Medicaid Cuts in Trump’s Tax Bill,” by Daniel Payne. And it’s about something called reverse lobbying, lawmakers lobbying the lobbyists — in this case, in hopes of getting them to speak out or not about the budget reconciliation bill and its possible impact. Both sides know the public trusts health groups more than they trust lawmakers at this point. 

And so Democrats are hoping doctor and hospital groups will speak out in opposition to the cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, while Republicans hope they will at least keep quiet. And Republicans, because it’s their bill, have added some sweeteners — a long-desired pay increase for doctors in Medicare. So we will have to wait to see how this all shakes out. 

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

Edney: X or Bluesky, @annaedney. 

Rovner: Joanne 

Kenen: Bluesky or LinkedIn, @joannekenen. 

Rovner: Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: All of the above, @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith. 

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, 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).

Pesticides are a known contributor to asthma and are commonly used where Bejarano lives in California’s Imperial Valley, a landlocked region that straddles two counties on the U.S.-Mexico border and is one of the main producers of the nation’s winter crops. It also has some of the worst air pollution in the nation and one of the highest rates of childhood asthma emergency room visits in the state, according to data collected by the California Department of Public Health.

Bejarano has since learned to manage her now-19-year-old son’s asthma and works at Comite Civico del Valle, a local rights organization focused on environmental justice in the Imperial Valley. The organization trains health care workers to educate patients on proper asthma management, enabling them to avoid hospitalization and eliminate triggers at home. The course is so popular that there’s a waiting list, Bejarano said.

But the group’s Asthma Management Academy program and similar initiatives nationwide face extinction with the Trump administration’s mass layoffs, grant cancellations, and proposed budget cuts at the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency. Asthma experts fear the cumulative impact of the reductions could result in more ER visits and deaths, particularly for children and people in low-income communities — populations disproportionately vulnerable to the disease.

“Asthma is a preventive condition,” Bejarano said. “No one should die of asthma.”

Asthma can block airways, making it hard to breathe, and in severe cases can cause death if not treated quickly. Nearly 28 million people in the U.S. have asthma, and about 10 people still die every day from the disease, according to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.

In May, the White House released a budget proposal that would permanently shutter the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Asthma Control Program, which was already gutted by federal health department layoffs in April. It’s unclear whether Congress will approve the closure.

Last year, the program allotted $33.5 million to state-administered initiatives in 27 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C., to help communities with asthma education. The funding is distributed in four-year grant cycles, during which the programs receive up to $725,000 each annually.

Comite Civico del Valle’s academy in Southern California, a clinician workshop in Houston, and asthma medical management training in Allentown, Pennsylvania — ranked the most challenging U.S. city to live in with asthma — are among the programs largely surviving on these grants. The first year of the current grant cycle ends Aug. 31, and it’s unknown whether funding will continue beyond then.

Data suggests that the CDC’s National Asthma Control Program has had a significant impact. The agency’s own research has shown that the program saves $71 in health care costs for every $1 invested. And the asthma death rate decreased 44% between the 1999 launch of the program and 2021, according to the American Lung Association.

“Losing support from the CDC will have devastating impacts on asthma programs in states and communities across the country, programs that we know are improving the lives of millions of people with asthma,” said Anne Kelsey Lamb, director of the Public Health Institute’s Regional Asthma Management and Prevention program. “And the thing is that we know a lot about what works to help people keep their asthma well controlled, and that’s why it’s so devastating.”

The Trump administration cited cost savings and efficiency in its April announcement of the cuts to HHS. Requests for comment from the White House and CDC about cuts to federal asthma and related programs were not answered.

The Information Wars

Fresno, in the heart of California’s Central Valley, is one of the country’s top 20 “asthma capitals,” with high rates of asthma and related emergencies and deaths. It’s home to programs that receive funding through the National Asthma Control Program. Health care professionals there also rely on another aspect of the program that is under threat if it’s shuttered: countrywide data.

The federal asthma program collects information on asthma rates and offers a tool to study prevalence and rates of death from the disease, see what populations are most affected, and assess state and local trends. Asthma educators and health care providers worry that the loss of these numbers could be the biggest impact of the cuts, because it would mean a dearth of information crucial to forming educated recommendations and treatment plans.

“How do we justify the services we provide if the data isn’t there?” said Graciela Anaya, director of community health at the Central California Asthma Collaborative in Fresno.

Mitchell Grayson, chair of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation’s Medical Scientific Council, is similarly concerned.

“My fear is we’re going to live in a world that is frozen in Jan. 19, 2025, as far as data, because that was the last time you know that this information was safely collected,” he said.

Grayson, an allergist who practices in Columbus, Ohio, said he also worries government websites will delete important recommendations that asthma sufferers avoid heavy air pollution, get annual flu shots, and get covid-19 vaccines.

Disproportionate Risk

Asthma disproportionately affects communities of color because of “historic structural issues,” said Lynda Mitchell, CEO of the Asthma and Allergy Network, citing a higher likelihood of living in public housing or near highways and other pollution sources.

She and other experts in the field said cuts to diversity initiatives across federal agencies, combined with the rollback of environmental protections, will have an outsize impact on these at-risk populations.

In December, the Biden administration awarded nearly $1.6 billion through the EPA’s Community Change Grants program to help disadvantaged communities address pollution and climate threats. The Trump administration moved to cut this funding in March. The grant freezes, which have been temporarily blocked by the courts, are part of a broader effort by the Trump EPA to eliminate aid to environmental justice programs across the agency.

In 2023 and 2024, the National Institutes of Health’s Climate Change and Health Initiative received $40 million for research, including on the link between asthma and climate change. The Trump administration has moved to cut that money. And a March memo essentially halted all NIH grants focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI — funds many of the asthma programs serving low-income communities rely on to operate.

On top of those cuts, environmental advocates like Isabel González Whitaker of Memphis, Tennessee, worry that the proposed reversals of environmental regulations will further harm the health of communities like hers that are already reeling from the effects of climate change. Shelby County, home to Memphis, recently received an “F” on the American Lung Association’s annual report card for having so many high ozone days. González Whitaker is director of EcoMadres, a program within the national organization Moms for Clean Air that advocates for better environmental conditions for Latino communities.

“Urgent asthma needs in communities are getting defunded at a time when I just see things getting worse in terms of deregulation,” said González Whitaker, who took her 12-year-old son to the hospital because of breathing issues for the first time this year. “We’re being assaulted by this data and science, which is clearly stating that we need to be doing better around preserving the regulations.”

Back in California’s Imperial Valley — where the majority-Hispanic, working-class population surrounds California’s largest lake, the Salton Sea — is an area called Bombay Beach. Bejarano calls it the “forgotten community.” Homes there lack clean running water, because of naturally occurring arsenic in the groundwater, and residents frequently experience a smell like rotten eggs blowing off the drying lakebed, exposing decades of pesticide-tinged dirt.

In 2022, a 12-year-old girl died in Bombay Beach after an asthma attack. Bejarano said she later learned that the girl’s school had recommended that she take part in Comite Civico del Valle’s at-home asthma education program. She said the girl was on the waiting list when she died.

“It hit home. Her death showed the personal need we have here in Imperial County,” Bejarano said. “Deaths are preventable. Asthma is reversible. If you have asthma, you should be able to live a healthy life.”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

After narrowly passing in the House in May, President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” has now arrived in the Senate, where Republicans are struggling to decide whether to pass it, change it, or — as Elon Musk, who recently stepped back from advising Trump, is demanding — kill it. 

Adding fuel to the fire, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill as written would increase the number of Americans without health insurance by nearly 11 million over the next decade. That number would grow to approximately 16 million should Republicans also not extend additional subsidies for the Affordable Care Act, which expire at year’s end. 

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

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

@jessiehellmann.bsky.social

Read Jessie's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

@alicemiranda.bsky.social

Read Alice's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Even before the CBO released estimates of how many Americans stand to lose health coverage under the House-passed budget reconciliation bill, Republicans in Washington were casting doubt on the nonpartisan office’s findings — as they did during their 2017 Affordable Care Act repeal effort.
• Responding to concerns about proposed Medicaid cuts, Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican, this week stood behind her controversial rejoinder at a town hall that “we’re all going to die.” The remark and its public response illuminated the problematic politics Republicans face in reducing benefits on which their constituents rely — and may foreshadow campaign fights to come.
• Journalists revealed that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s report on children’s health may have been generated at least in part by artificial intelligence. The telltale signs in the report of what are called “AI hallucinations” included citations to scientific studies that don’t exist and a garbled interpretation of the findings of other research, raising further questions about the validity of the report’s recommendations.
• And the Trump administration this week revoked Biden-era guidance on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Regardless, the underlying law instructing hospitals to care for those experiencing pregnancy emergencies still applies.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Arielle Zionts, who reported and wrote the latest “Bill of the Month” feature, about a Medicaid patient who had an emergency in another state and the big bill he got for his troubles. If you have an infuriating, outrageous, or baffling medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Native Americans Hurt by Federal Health Cuts, Despite RFK Jr.’s Promises of Protection,” by Katheryn Houghton, Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez, and Arielle Zionts.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “‘They’re the Backbone’: Trump’s Targeting of Legal Immigrants Threatens Health Sector,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.

Lauren Weber: The New York Times’ “Take the Quiz: Could You Manage as a Poor American?” by Emily Badger and Margot Sanger-Katz.

Jessie Hellmann: The New York Times’ “A DNA Technique Is Finding Women Who Left Their Babies for Dead,” by Isabelle Taft.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• NOTUS.org’s “The MAHA Report Cites Studies That Don’t Exist,” by Emily Kennard and Margaret Manto.
• The Washington Post’s “White House MAHA Report May Have Garbled Science by Using AI, Experts Say,” by Lauren Weber and Caitlin Gilbert.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ Lands in Senate. Our 400th Episode!

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, June 5, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Lauren Weber of The Washington Post. 

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello. 

Rovner: And Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call. 

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with my colleague Arielle Zionts, who reported and wrote the KFF Health News “Bill of the Month,” about a Medicaid patient who had a medical emergency out of state and got a really big bill to boot. But first the news. And buckle up — there is a lot of it. 

We’ll start on Capitol Hill, where the Senate is back this week and turning its attention to that “Big Beautiful” budget reconciliation bill passed by the House last month, and we’ll get to the fights over it in a moment. But first, the Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday finished its analysis of the House-passed bill, and the final verdict is in. It would reduce federal health care spending by more than a trillion dollars, with a T, over the next decade. That’s largely from Medicaid but also significantly from the Affordable Care Act. And in a separate letter from CBO Wednesday afternoon, analysts projected that 10.9 million more people would be uninsured over the next decade as a result of the bill’s provisions. 

Additionally, 5.1 million more people would lose ACA coverage as a result of the bill, in combination with letting the Biden-era enhanced subsidies expire, for a grand total of 16 million more people uninsured as a result of Congress’ action and inaction. I don’t expect that number is going to help this bill get passed in the Senate, will it? 

Ollstein: We’re seeing a lot of what we saw during the Obamacare repeal fight in that, even before this report came out, Republicans were working to discredit the CBO in the eyes of the public and sow the seeds of mistrust ahead of time so that these pretty damaging numbers wouldn’t derail the effort. They did in that case, among other things. And so they could now, despite their protestations. 

But I think they’re saying a combination of true things about the CBO, like it’s based on guesses and estimates and models and you have to predict what human behavior is going to be. Are people going to just drop coverage altogether? Are they going to do this? Are they going to do that? But these are the experts we have. This is the nonpartisan body that Congress has chosen to rely on, so you’re not really seeing them present their own credible sources and data. They’re more just saying, Don’t believe these guys. 

Rovner: Yeah, and some of these things we know. We’ve seen. We’ve talked about the work requirement a million times, that when you have work requirements in Medicaid, the people who lose coverage are not people who refuse to work. It’s people who can’t navigate the bureaucracy. And when premiums go up, which they will for the Affordable Care Act, not just because they’re letting these extra subsidies expire but because they’re going back to the way premiums were calculated before 2017. The more expensive premiums get, the fewer people sign up. So it’s not exactly rocket science figuring out that you’re going to have a lot more people without health insurance as a result of this. 

Ollstein: Honestly, it seems from the reactions so far that Republicans on the Hill are more impacted by the CBO’s deficit increase estimates than they are by the number of uninsured-people increase estimates. 

Rovner: And that frankly feels a little more inexplicable to me that the Republicans are just saying, This won’t add to the deficit. And the CBO — it’s arithmetic. It’s not higher math. It’s like if you cut taxes this much so there’s less money coming in, there’s going to be less money and a bigger deficit. I’m not a math person, but I can do that part, at least in my head. 

Jessie, you’re on the Hill. What are you seeing over in the Senate? We don’t even have really a schedule for how this is going to go yet, right? We don’t know if the committees are going to do work, if they’re just going to plunk the House bill on the floor and amend it. It’s all sort of a big question mark. 

Hellmann: Yeah, we don’t have text yet from any of the committees that have health jurisdiction. There’s been a few bills from other committees, but obviously Senate Finance has a monumental task ahead of them. They are the ones that have jurisdiction over Medicaid. Their members said that they have met dozens of times already to work out the details. The members of the Finance Committee were at the White House yesterday with President [Donald] Trump to talk about the bill. 

It doesn’t seem like they got into the nitty-gritty policy details. And the message from the president seemed to mostly be, like, Just pass this bill and don’t make any major changes to it. Which is a tall order, I think, for some of the members like [Sens.] Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, and even a few others that are starting to come out and raise concerns about some of the changes that the House made, like to the way that states finance their share of Medicaid spending through the provider tax. 

Lisa Murkowski has raised concerns about how soon the work requirements would take effect, because, she was saying, Alaska doesn’t have the infrastructure right now and that would take a little bit to work out. So there are clearly still a lot of details that need to be worked out. 

Rovner: Well, I would note that Senate Republicans were already having trouble communicating about this bill even before these latest CBO numbers came out. At a town hall meeting last weekend in Iowa, where nearly 1 in 5 residents are on Medicaid, Republican Sen. Joni Ernst had an unfortunate reaction to a heckler in the audience, and, rather than apologize — well, here’s what she posted on Instagram. 

Sen. Joni Ernst: Hello, everyone. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely apologize for a statement that I made yesterday at my town hall. See, I was in the process of answering a question that had been asked by an audience member when a woman who was extremely distraught screamed out from the back corner of the auditorium, “People are going to die!” And I made an incorrect assumption that everyone in the auditorium understood that, yes, we are all going to perish from this earth. 

So I apologize. And I’m really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the tooth fairy as well. But for those that would like to see eternal and everlasting life, I encourage you to embrace my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. 

Rovner: And what you can’t see, just to add some emphasis, Ernst recorded this message in a cemetery with tombstones visible behind her. I know it is early in this debate, but I feel like we might look back on this moment later like [Sen. John] McCain’s famous thumbs-down in the 2017 repeal-and-replace debate. Or is it too soon? Lauren. 

Weber: For all the messaging they’ve tried to do around Medicaid cuts, for all the messaging, We’re all going to die I cannot imagine was on the list of approved talking points. And at the end of the day, I think it gets at how uncomfortable it is to face the reality of your constituents saying, I no longer have health care. This has been true since the beginning of time. Once you roll out an entitlement program, it’s very difficult to roll it back. 

So I think that this is just a preview of how poorly this will go for elected officials, because there will be plenty of people thrown off of Medicaid who are also Republicans. That could come back to bite them in the midterms and in general, I think, could lead — combine it with the anti-DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] fervor— I think you could have a real recipe for quite the feedback. 

Rovner: Yes, and we’re going to talk about DOGE in a second. As we all now know, Elon Musk’s time as a government employee has come to an end, and we’ll talk about his legacy in a minute. But on his way out the door, he let loose a barrage of criticism of the bill, calling it, among other things, a, quote “disgusting abomination” that will saddle Americans with, quote, “crushingly unsustainable debt.” 

So basically we have a handful of Republicans threatening to oppose the bill because it adds to the deficit, another handful of Republicans worried about the health cuts — and then what? Any ideas how this battle plays out. I think in the House they managed to get it through by just saying, Keep the ball rolling and send it to the Senate. Now the Senate, it’s going to be harder, I think, for the Senate to say, Oh, we’ll keep the ball rolling and send it back to the House. 

Ollstein: Well, and to jump off Lauren’s point, I think the political blowback is really going to be because this is insult on top of injury in terms of not only are people going to lose Medicaid, Republicans, if this passes, but they’re being told that the only people who are going to lose Medicaid are undocumented immigrants and the undeserving. So not only do you lose Medicaid because of choices made by the people you elected, but then they turn around and imply or directly say you never deserved it in the first place. That’s pretty tough. 

Rovner: And we’re all going to die. 

Ollstein: And we’re all going to die. 

Weber: Just to add onto this, I do think it’s important to note that work requirements poll very popularly among the American people. A majority of Americans here “work requirements” and say, Gee, that sounds like a commonsense solution. What the reality that we’ve talked about in this podcast many, many times is, that it ends up kicking off people for bureaucratic reasons. It’s a way to reduce the rolls. It doesn’t necessarily encourage work. 

But to the average bear, it sounds great. Yes, absolutely. Why wouldn’t we want more people working? So I do think there is some messaging there, but at the end of the day, like Alice said, like I pointed out, they have not figured out the messaging enough, and it is going to add insult to injury to imply to some of these folks that they did not deserve their health care. 

Ollstein: And what’s really baffling is they are running around saying that Medicaid is going to people who should never have been on the program in the first place, able-bodied people without children who are not too young and not too old, sort of implying that these people are enrolling against the wishes of the program’s creators. 

But Congress explicitly voted for these people to be eligible for the program. And then after the Supreme Court made it optional, all of these states, most states, voted either by a direct popular vote or through the legislature to extend Medicaid to this population. And now they’re turning around and saying they were never supposed to be on it in the first place. We didn’t get here by accident or fraud. 

Rovner: Or by executive order. 

Ollstein: Exactly. 

Rovner: Well, even before the Senate digs in, there’s still a lot of stuff that got packed into that House bill, some of it at the last minute that most people still aren’t aware of. And I’m not talking about [Rep.] Marjorie Taylor Greene and AI, although that, too, among other things. And shout out here to our podcast panelist Maya Goldman over at Axios. The bill would reduce the amount of money medical students could borrow, threatening the ability of people to train to become doctors, even while the nation is already suffering a doctor shortage. 

It would also make it harder for medical residents to pay their loans back and do a variety of other things. The idea behind this is apparently to force medical schools to lower their tuition, which would be nice, but this feels like a very indirect way of doing it. 

Weber: I just don’t think it’s very popular in an era in which we’re constantly talking about physician shortages and encouraging folks that are from minority communities or underserved communities to become primary care physicians or infectious disease physicians, to go to the communities that need them, that reflect them, to then say, Look, we’re going to cut your loans. And what that’s going to do — short of RFK [Robert F. Kennedy Jr.], who has toyed with playing with the code. So who knows? We could see. 

But as the current structure stands, here’s the deal: You have a lot of medical debt. You are incentivized to go into a more lucrative specialty. That means that you’re not going into primary care. You’re not going into infectious disease care. You’re not going to rural America, because they can’t pay you what it costs to repay all of your loans. So, I do think — and, it was interesting. I think the Guardian spoke to some of the folks from the study that said that this could change it. That study was based off of metrics from 2006, and for some reason they were like, The financial private pay loans are not really going to cut it today. 

I find it hard to believe this won’t get fixed, to be quite honest, just because I think hating on medical students is usually a losing battle in the current system. But who knows? 

Rovner: And hospitals have a lot of clout. 

Weber: Yeah. 

Rovner: Although there’s a lot of things in this bill that they would like to fix. And, I don’t know. Maybe— 

Weber: Well, and hospitals have a lot of financial incentive, because essentially they make medical residents indentured servants. So, yeah, they also would like them to have less loans. 

Rovner: As I mentioned earlier, Elon Musk has decamped from DOGE, but in his wake is a lot of disruption at the Department of Health and Human Services and not necessarily a lot of savings. Thousands of federal workers are still in limbo on administrative leave, to possibly be reinstated or possibly not, with no one doing their jobs in the meantime. Those who are still there are finding their hands tied by a raft of new rules, including the need to get a political-appointee sign-off for even the most routine tasks. 

And around the country, thousands of scientific grants and contracts have been summarily frozen or terminated for no stated cause, as the administration seeks to punish universities for a raft of supposed crimes that have nothing to do with what’s being studied. I know that it just happened, but how is DOGE going to be remembered? I imagine not for all of the efficiencies that it has wrung out of the health care system. 

Ollstein: Well, one, I wouldn’t be so sure things are over, either between Elon and the Trump administration or what the amorphous blob that is DOGE. I think that the overall slash-and-burn of government is going to continue in some form. They are trying to formalize it by sending a bill to Congress to make these cuts, that they already made without Congress’ permission, official. We’ll see where that goes, but I think that it’s not an ending. It’s just morphing into whatever its next iteration is. 

Rovner: I would note that the first rescission request that the administration has sent up formally includes getting rid of USAID [the U.S. Agency for International Development] and PEPFAR [the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] and public broadcasting, which seems unlikely to garner a majority in both houses. 

Ollstein: Except, like I said, this is asking them to rubber-stamp something they’re already trying to do without them. Congress doesn’t like its power being infringed on, especially appropriators. They guard that power very jealously. Now, we have seen them a little quieter in this administration than maybe you would’ve thought, but I think there are some who, even if they agree on the substance of the cuts, might object to the process and just being asked to rubber-stamp it after the fact. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy continues to try to remake what’s left of HHS, although his big reorganization is currently blocked by a federal judge. And it turns out that his big MAHA, “Make America Healthy Again,” report may have been at least in part written by AI, which apparently became obvious when the folks at the news service NOTUS decided to do something that was never on my reporting bingo card, which is to check the footnotes in the report to see if they were real, which apparently many are not. Then, Lauren, you and your colleagues took that yet another step. So tell us about that. 

Weber: Yeah. NOTUS did a great job. They went through all the footnotes to find out that several of the studies didn’t exist, and my colleagues and I saw that and said, Hm, let’s look a little closer at these footnotes and see. And what we were able to do in speaking with AI experts is find telltale signs of AI. It’s basically a sign of artificial intelligence when things are hallucinated — which is what they call it — which is when it sounds right but isn’t completely factual, which is one of the dangers of using AI. 

And it appears that some of AI was used in the footnotes of this MAHA report, again, to, as NOTUS pointed out, create studies that don’t exist. It also kind of garbled some of the science on the other pieces of this. We found something called “oaicite,” which is a marker of OpenAI system, throughout the report. And at the end of the day, it casts a lot of questions on the report as a whole and: How exactly did it get made? What is the science behind this report? 

And even before anyone found any of these footnotes of any of this, a fair amount of these studies that this report cites to back up its thesis are a stretch. Even putting aside the fake studies and the garbled studies, I think it’s important to also note that a lot of the studies the report cites, a lot of what Kennedy does, take it a lot further than what they actually say. 

Rovner: So, this is all going well. Meanwhile, there is continuing confusion in vaccine land after Secretary Kennedy, flanked by FDA [Food and Drug Administration] Commissioner Marty Makary and NIH [National Institutes of Health] Director Jay Bhattacharya, announced in a video on X that the department would no longer recommend covid vaccines for pregnant women and healthy children, sidestepping the expert advice of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and its advisory committee of experts. 

The HHS officials say people who may still be at risk can discuss whether to get the vaccine with their doctors, but if the vaccines are no longer on the recommended list, then insurance is less likely to cover them and medical facilities are less likely to stock them. Paging Sen. [Bill] Cassidy, who still, as far as I can tell, hasn’t said anything about the secretary’s violation of his promise to the senator during his confirmation hearings that he wouldn’t mess with the vaccine schedule. Have we heard a peep from Sen. Cassidy about any of this? 

Ollstein: I have not, but a lot of the medical field has been very vocal and very upset. I was actually at the annual conference of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists when this news broke, and they were just so confused and so upset. They had seen pregnant patients die of covid before the vaccines were available, or because there was so much misinformation and mistrust about the vaccines’ safety for pregnant people that a lot of people avoided it, and really suffered the consequences of avoiding it. 

A lot of the issue was that there were not good studies of the vaccine in pregnant people at the beginning of the rollout. There have since been, and those studies have since shown that it is safe and effective for pregnant people. But it was, in a lot of people’s minds, too late, because they already got it in their head that it was unsafe or untested. So the OB-GYNs at this conference were really, really worried about this. 

Rovner: And, confusingly, the CDC on its website amended its recommendations to leave children recommended but not pregnant women, which is kind of the opposite of, I think, what most of the medical experts were recommending. Jessie, you were about to add something. 

Hellmann: I just feel like the confusion is the point. I think Kennedy has made it a pattern now to get out ahead of an official agency decision and kind of set the narrative, even if it is completely opposite of what his agencies are recommending or are stating. He’s done this with a report that the CDC came out with autism, when he said rising autism cases aren’t because of more recognition and the CDC report said it’s a large part because of more recognition. 

He’s done this with food dyes. He said, We’re banning food dyes. And then it turns out they just asked manufacturers to stop putting food dyes into it. So I think it’s part of, he’s this figurehead of the agency and he likes to get out in front of it and just state something as fact, and that is what people are going to remember, not something on a CDC webpage that most people aren’t going to be able to find. 

Rovner: Yeah, it sounds like President Trump. It’s like, saying it is more important than doing it, in a lot of cases. So of course there’s abortion news this week, too. The Trump administration on Tuesday reversed the Biden administration guidance regarding EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Biden officials, in the wake of the overturn of Roe v. Wade three years ago, had reminded hospitals that take Medicare and Medicaid, which is all of them, basically, that the requirement to provide emergency care includes abortion when warranted, regardless of state bans. Now, Alice, this wasn’t really unexpected. In fact, it’s happening later than I think a lot of people expected it to happen. How much impact is it going to have, beyond a giant barrage of press releases from both sides in the abortion debate? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so, OK, it’s important for people to remember that what the Biden administration, the guidance they put out was just sort of an interpretation of the underlying law. So the underlying law isn’t changing. The Biden administration was just saying: We are stressing that the underlying law means in the abortion context, in the post-Dobbs context, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, that hospitals cannot turn away a pregnant woman who’s having a medical crisis. And if the necessary treatment to save her life or stabilize her is an abortion, then that’s what they have to do, regardless of the laws in the state. 

In a sense, nothing’s changed, because EMTALA itself is still in place, but it does send a signal that could make hospitals feel more comfortable turning people away or denying treatment, since the government is signaling that they don’t consider that a violation. Now, I will say, you’re totally right that this was expected. In the big lawsuit over this that is playing out now in Idaho, one of the state’s hospitals intervened as a plaintiff, basically in anticipation of this happening, saying, The Trump administration might not defend EMTALA in the abortion context, so we’re going to do it for them, basically, to keep this case alive. 

Rovner: And I would point out that ProPublica just won a Pulitzer for its series detailing the women who were turned away and then died because they were having pregnancy complications. So we do know that this is happening. Interestingly, the day before the administration’s announcement, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists put out a new, quote, “practice advisory” on the treatment of preterm pre-labor rupture of membranes, which is one of the more common late-pregnancy complications that result in abortion, because of the risk of infection to the pregnant person. 

Reading from that guidance, quote, “the Practice Advisory affirms that ob-gyns and other clinicians must be able to intervene and, in cases of previable and periviable PPROM” — that’s the premature rupture of membranes — “provide abortion care before the patient becomes critically ill.” Meanwhile, this statement came out Wednesday from the American College of Emergency Physicians, quote, ,“Regardless of variances in the regulatory landscape from one administration to another, emergency physicians remain committed not just by law, but by their professional oath, to provide this care.” 

So on the one hand, professional organizations are speaking out more strongly than I think we’ve seen them do it before, but they’re not the ones that are in the emergency room facing potential jail time for, Do I obey the federal law or do I obey the state ban? 

Ollstein: And when I talk to doctors who are grappling with this, they say that even with the Biden administration’s interpretation of EMTALA, that didn’t solve the problem for them. It was some measure of protection and confidence. But still, exactly like you said, they’re still caught in between seemingly conflicting state and federal law. And really a lot of them, based on what they told me, were saying that the threat of the state law is more severe. It’s more immediate. 

It means being charged with a felony, being charged with a crime if they do provide the abortion, versus it’s a federal penalty, it’s not on the doctor itself. It’s on the institution. And it may or may not happen at some point. So when you have criminal charges on one side and maybe some federal regulation or an investigation on the other side, what are you going to choose? 

Rovner: And it’s hard to imagine this administration doing a lot of these investigations. They seem to be turning to other things. Well, we will watch this space, and obviously this is all still playing out in court. All right, that is this week’s news, or at least as much as we could squeeze in. Now we’ll play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Arielle Zionts, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

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

Arielle Zionts: Hi. Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So this month’s patient has Medicaid as his health insurance, and he left his home state of Florida to visit family in South Dakota for the holidays, where he had a medical emergency. Tell us who he is and what happened that landed him in the hospital. 

Zionts: Sure. So I spoke with Hans Wirt. He was visiting family in the Black Hills. That’s where Mount Rushmore is and its beautiful outdoors. He was at a water park, following his son up and down the stairs and getting kind of winded. And at first he thought it might just be the elevation difference, because in Florida it’s like 33 feet above sea level. Here it’s above 3,000 in Rapid City. 

But then they got him back to the hotel room and he was getting a lot worse, his breathing, and then he turned pale. And his 12-year-old son is the one who called 911. And medics were like, Yep, you’re having a heart attack. And they took him to the hospital in town, and that is the only place to go. There’s just one hospital with an ER in Rapid City. 

Rovner: So the good news is that he was ultimately OK, but the bad news is that the hospital tried to stick them with the bill. How big was it? 

Zionts: It was nearly $78,000. 

Rovner: Wow. So let’s back up a bit. How did Mr. Wirt come to be on Medicaid? 

Zionts: Yeah. So it is significant that he is from Florida, because that is one of the 10 states that has not opted in to expand Medicaid. So in Florida, if you’re an adult, you can’t just be low-income. You have to also be disabled or caring for a minor child. And Hans says that’s his case. He works part time at a family business, but he also cares for his 12-year-old son, who is also on Medicaid. 

Rovner: So Medicaid patients, as we know, are not supposed to be charged even small copays for care in most cases. Is that still the case when they get care in other states? 

Zionts: So Medicaid will not pay for patient care if they are getting more of an elective or non-medically necessary kind of optional procedure or care in another state. But there are several exceptions, and one of the exceptions is if they have an emergency in another state. So federal law says that state Medicaid programs have to reimburse those hospitals if it was for emergency care. 

Rovner: And presumably a heart attack is an emergency. 

Zionts: Yes. 

Rovner: So why did the hospital try to bill him anyway? They should have billed Florida Medicaid, right? 

Zionts: So what’s interesting is while there’s a law that says the Medicaid program has to reimburse the hospital, there’s no law saying the hospital has to send the bill to Medicaid. And that was really interesting to learn. In this case, the hospital, it’s called Monument Health, and they said they only bill plans in South Dakota and four of our bordering states. So basically they said for them to bill for the Medicaid, they would have to enroll. 

And they say they don’t do that in every state, because there is a separate application process for each state. And their spokesperson described it as a burdensome process. So in this case, they billed Hans instead. 

Rovner: So what eventually happened with this bill? He presumably didn’t have $78,000 to spare. 

Zionts: Correct. Yeah. And he had told them that, and he said they only offered, Hey, you can set up a payment plan. But that would’ve still been really expensive, the monthly payments. So he reached out to KFF Health News, and I had sent my questions to the hospital, and then a few days later I get a text from Hans and he says, Hey, my balance is at zero now. He and I both eventually learned that that’s because the hospital paid for his care through a program called Charity Care. 

All nonprofit hospitals are required to have this program, which provides free or very discounted pricing for patients who are uninsured or very underinsured. And the hospital said that they screen everyone for this program before sending them to collections. But what that meant is that for months, Hans was under the impression that he was getting this bill. And he was, got a notice saying, This is your last warning before we send you to collection. 

Rovner: So, maybe they would’ve done it anyway, or maybe you gave them a nudge. 

Zionts: They say they would’ve done it anyways. 

Rovner: OK. So what’s the takeaway here? It can’t be that if you have Medicaid, you can’t travel to another state to visit family at Christmas. 

Zionts: Right. So Hans made that same joke. He said, quote, “If I get sick and have a heart attack, I have to be sure that I do that here in Florida now instead of some other state.” Obviously, he’s kidding. You can’t control when you have an emergency. So the takeaway is that you do risk being billed and that if you don’t know how to advocate yourself, you might get sent to collections. But I also learned that there’s things that you can do. 

So you could file a complaint with your state Medicaid program, and also, if you have a managed-care program, and they might have — you should ask for a caseworker, like, Hey, can you communicate with the hospital? Or you can contact an attorney. There’s free legal-aid ones. An attorney I spoke with said that she would’ve immediately sent a letter to the hospital saying, Look, you need to either register with Florida Medicaid and submit it. If not, you need to offer the Charity Care. So that’s the advice. 

Rovner: So, basically, be ready to advocate for yourself. 

Zionts: Yes. 

Rovner: OK. Arielle Zionts, thank you so much. 

Zionts: Thank you. 

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

Hellmann: My story is from The New York Times. It’s called “A [DNA] Technique Is Finding Women Who Left Their Babies for Dead,” which I don’t know how I feel about that headline, but the story was really interesting. It’s about how police departments are using DNA technology to find the mothers of infants that had been found dead years and years ago. And it gets a little bit into just the complicated situation. 

Some of these women have gone on to have families. They have successful careers. And now some of them are being charged with murder, and some who have been approached about this have unfortunately died by suicide. And it just gets into the ethics of the issue and what police and doctors, families, should be considering about the context around some of these situations, about what the circumstances were, in some cases, 40 years ago and what should be done with that. 

Rovner: Really thought-provoking story. Lauren. 

Weber: With credit to Julie, too, because she brought this up again, was brought back to a classic from The New York Times back in 2020, which is called “Take a Quiz: Could You Manage as a Poor American?” And here are the questions: I will read them for the group. 

Rovner: And I will point out that this is once again relevant. That’s why it was brought back. 

Weber: It’s once again relevant, and one of them is, “Do you have paper mail you plan to read that has been unopened for more than a week?” Yes. I’m looking at paper mail on my desk. “Have you forgotten to pay a utility bill on time?” If I didn’t set up auto pay, I probably would forget to pay a utility bill on time. “Have you received a government document in the mail that you did not understand?” Many times. “Have you missed a doctor’s appointment because you forgot you scheduled it or something came up?” 

These are the basic facts that can derail someone from having access to health care or saddle them, because they lose access to health care and don’t realize it, with massive hospital bills. And this is a lot of what we could see in the coming months if some of these Medicaid changes come through. And I just, I think I would challenge a lot of people to think seriously about how much mail they leave unopened and what that could mean for them, especially if you are living in different homes, if you are moving frequently, etc. This paperwork burden is something to definitely be considered. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think we should sort of refloat this every time we have another one of these debates. Alice. 

Ollstein: So I wanted to recommend something I wrote [“‘They’re the Backbone’: Trump’s Targeting of Legal Immigrants Threatens Health Sector”]. It was my last story before taking some time off this summer. It is about the intersection of Trump’s immigration policies and our health care system. And so this is jumping off the Supreme Court allowing the Trump administration to strip legal status from hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Again, these are people who came legally through a designated program, and they are being made undocumented by the Trump administration, with the Supreme Court’s blessing. And tens of thousands of them are health care workers. 

And so I visited an elder care facility in Northern Virginia that was set to lose 65 staff members, and I talked to the residents and the other workers about how this would affect them, and the owner. And it was just a microcosm of the damage this could have on our health sector more broadly. Elder care is especially immigrant-heavy in its workforce, and everyone there was saying there just are not the people to replace these folks. 

And not only is that the case right now, but as the baby boomer generation ages and requires care, the shortages we see now are going to be nothing compared to what we could see down the road. With the lower birth rates here, we’re just not producing enough workers to do these jobs. The piece also looks into how public health and management of infectious diseases is also being worsened by these immigration raids and crackdowns and deportations. So, would love people to take a look. 

Rovner: I’m so glad you did this story, because it’s something that I keep running up and down screaming. And you can tell us why you’re taking some time off this summer, Alice. 

Ollstein: I’m writing a book. Hopefully it will be out next year, and I can’t wait to tell everyone more about it. 

Rovner: Excellent. All right. My extra credit this week is from my KFF Health News colleagues Katheryn Houghton, Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez, and Arielle Zionts, who you just heard talking about her “Bill of the Month,” and it’s called “Native Americans Hurt by Federal Health Cuts, Despite RFK Jr.’s Promises of Protection.” And that sums it up pretty well. The HHS secretary had a splashy photo op earlier this year out west, where he promised to prioritize Native American health. But while he did spare the Indian Health Service from personnel cuts, it turns out that the Native American population is also served by dozens of other HHS programs that were cut, some of them dramatically, everything from home energy assistance to programs that improve access to healthy food, to preventing overdoses. The Native community has been disproportionately hurt by the purging of DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] programs, because Native populations have systematically been subjected to unequal treatment over many generations. It’s a really good if somewhat infuriating story. 

OK. That is this week’s show. Before we go, if you will indulge me for a minute, this is our 400th episode of “What the Health?” We launched in 2017 during that year’s repeal-and-replace debate. I want to thank all of my panelists, current and former, for teaching me something new every single week. And everyone here at KFF Health News who makes this podcast possible. That includes not only my chief partners in crime, Francis Ying and Emmarie Huetteman, but also the copy desk and social media and web teams who do all the behind-the-scenes work that brings our podcast to you every week. And of course, big thanks to you, the listeners, who have stuck with us all these years. 

I won’t promise you 400 more episodes, but I will keep doing this as long as you keep wanting it. 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. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks these days? Jessie? 

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann on X and Bluesky, and LinkedIn. 

Rovner: Lauren. 

Weber: I’m @LaurenWeberHP on X and on Bluesky, shockingly, now. 

Rovner: Alice. 

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

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

With only a single vote to spare, the House passed a controversial budget bill that includes billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy, along with billions of dollars of cuts to Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and the food stamp program — most of which will affect those at the lower end of the income scale. But the bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate.

Meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released a report from his commission to “Make America Healthy Again” that described threats to the health of the American public — but notably included nothing on threats from tobacco, gun violence, or a lack of health insurance.

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

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg News

@annaedney

@annaedney.bsky.social

Read Anna's stories.

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

@sarahkarlin-smith.bsky.social

Read Sarah's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

@alicemiranda.bsky.social

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• House Republicans passed their “big, beautiful” bill 215-214 this week, with one Republican critic voting present. But the Senate may have its own “big, beautiful” rewrite. Some conservative senators who worry about federal debt are concerned that the bill is not fully paid for and would add to the budget deficit. Others, including some red-state Republicans, say the bill’s cuts to Medicaid and food assistance go too far and would hurt low-income Americans. The bill’s cuts would represent the biggest reductions to Medicaid in the program’s 60-year history.
• Many of the bill’s Medicaid cuts would come from adding work requirements. Most people receiving Medicaid already work, but such requirements in Arkansas and Georgia showed that people often lose coverage under these rules because they have trouble documenting their work hours, including because of technological problems. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated an earlier version of the bill would reduce the number of people with Medicaid by at least 8.6 million over a decade. The requirements also could add a burden for employers. The bill’s work requirements are relatively broad and would affect people who are 19 to 64 years old. 
• People whose Medicaid coverage is canceled also would no longer qualify for ACA subsidies for marketplace plans. Medicare also would be affected, because the bill would be expected to trigger an across-the-board sequestration cut.
• The bill also would impact abortion by effectively banning it in ACA marketplace plans, which would disrupt a compromise struck in the 2010 law. And the bill would block funding for Planned Parenthood in Medicaid, although that federal money is used for other care such as cancer screenings, not abortions. In the past, the Senate parliamentarian has said that kind of provision is not allowed under budget rules, but some Republicans want to take the unusual step of overruling the parliamentarian.
• This week, FDA leaders released covid-19 vaccine recommendations in a medical journal. They plan to limit future access to the vaccines to people 65 and older and others who are at high risk of serious illness if infected, and they want to require manufacturers to do further clinical trials to show whether the vaccines benefit healthy younger people. There are questions about whether this is legal, which products would be affected, when this would take effect, and whether it’s ethical to require these studies. 
• HHS released a report on chronic disease starting in childhood. The report doesn’t include many new findings but is noteworthy in part because of what it doesn’t discuss — gun violence, the leading cause of death for children and teens in the United States; tobacco; the lack of health insurance coverage; and socioeconomic factors that affect access to healthy food.

Also this week, Rovner interviews University of California-Davis School of Law professor and abortion historian Mary Ziegler about her new book on the past and future of the “personhood” movement aimed at granting legal rights to fetuses and embryos.

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 “White House Officials Wanted To Put Federal Workers ‘in Trauma.’ It’s Working,” by William Wan and Hannah Natanson.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: NPR’s “Diseases Are Spreading. The CDC Isn’t Warning the Public Like It Was Months Ago,” by Chiara Eisner.

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “The Potential Cancer, Health Risks Lurking in One Popular OTC Drug,” by Anna Edney.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The Farmingdale Observer’s “Scientists Have Been Studying Remote Work for Four Years and Have Reached a Very Clear Conclusion: ‘Working From Home Makes Us Happier,’” by Bob Rubila.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “As Congress Debates Cutting Medicaid, a Major Study Shows It Saves Lives,” by Sarah Kliff and Margot Sanger-Katz.
• NBC News’ “Georgia Mother Says She Is Being Forced To Keep Brain-Dead Pregnant Daughter Alive Under Abortion Ban Law,” by Minyvonne Burke.
• The Washington Post’s “Trump and GOP’s Tax Bill Would Force Cuts to Medicare, CBO Says,” by Jacob Bogage and Abha Bhattarai.
• The New England Journal of Medicine’s “An Evidence-Based Approach to Covid-19 Vaccination,” by Vinay Prasad and Martin A. Makary.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Bill With Billions in Health Program Cuts Passes House

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Friday, May 23, at 10 a.m. As always, and particularly this week, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi, everybody. 

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hello there. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with law professor and abortion historian Mary Ziegler, who has a new book out on the history and possible future of the “personhood” movement. But first, this week’s news. 

So, against all odds and many predictions, including my own, the House around 7 a.m. Thursday morning, after being in session all night, passed President [Donald] Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill — that is its actual, official name — by a vote of 215-214, with one Republican voting present. Before we get into the details of the House-passed bill, what are the prospects for this budget reconciliation bill in this form in the Senate? Very different, I would think. 

Ollstein: Yeah, this is not going to come out the way it went in. Senate is already openly talking about a “‘One, Big Beautiful’ Rewrite” — that was the headline at Politico. 

And you’re going to see some of the same dynamics. You’re going to see hard-liners saying this doesn’t go far enough, this actually adds a lot to the deficit even with all of the deep cuts to government programs. And you’re going to have moderates who have a lot of people in their state who depend on Medicaid and other programs that are set to be cut who say this goes too far. And so you’re going to have that same push and pull. And the House, barely, by one vote, got this through. And so we’ll see if the Senate is able to do the same. 

Rovner: Yeah, so all eyes on [Sen.] John McCain in 2017. This year it could be all eyes on Josh Hawley, I suspect, the very conservative senator from Missouri who keeps saying “Don’t touch Medicaid.” 

But back to the House bill. We don’t have official scores yet from the Congressional Budget Office, and we won’t for a while, I suspect. But given some last-minute changes made to pacify conservatives who, as Alice pointed out, said this bill didn’t cut deeply enough, I think it’s clear that if it became law in this form, it would represent the biggest cuts to federal health programs in the 60-year history of Medicare and Medicaid. 

Those last-minute changes also took pretty square aim at the Affordable Care Act, too, so much that I think it’s safe to call this even more than a partial repeal of the health law. And Medicare does not go unscathed in this measure, either, despite repeated promises by President Trump on the campaign trail and since he took office. 

Let’s take these one at a time, starting with Medicaid. I would note that at a meeting with House Republicans on Tuesday, President Trump told them not to expletive around with Medicaid. You can go look up the exact quote yourself if you like. But apparently he’s OK with the $700 billion plus that would be cut in the bill, which Republicans say is just waste, fraud, and abuse. Where does that money come from? And would Medicaid really continue to cover everyone who’s eligible now, which is kind of what the president and moderate Republicans are promising? 

Edney: Well, it sounds like the bulk of it is coming from the work requirements that Alice mentioned earlier. And would it be able to cover them? Sure, but will it? No, in the sense that, as Alice has talked about often on this podcast, it’s basically a time tax. It’s not easy to comply with. All federal regulations, they’re not going to a website and putting in what you did for work. Particularly, if you are a freelancer or something, it can be really difficult to meet all the requirements that they’re looking for. And also, for some people, they just don’t have the ability, even the internet, to be able to do that reliably. So they’re going to save money because people are going to lose their health care. 

Rovner: I saw a lot of people referring to them this week not as work requirements anymore but as work reporting requirements. Somebody suggested it was like the equivalent of having to file your income taxes every month. It’s not just check a box and say, I worked this month. It’s producing documentation. And a lot of people have jobs that are inconsistent. They may work some hours some week and other hours the other week. And even people who work for small businesses, that would put an enormous burden on the employers to come up with all this. 

Obviously, the CBO thinks that a lot of people won’t be able to do this and therefore people are going to lose their health insurance. But Alice, as you have told us numerous times when we did this in Arkansas, it’s not that people aren’t working — it’s that people aren’t successfully reporting their work. 

Ollstein: Right. And we’ve seen this in Georgia, too, where this has been implemented, where there are many different ways that people who are working lose their insurance with this. People who don’t have good internet access struggle. People who have fluctuating work schedules, whether it’s agricultural work, tourism work, things that are more seasonal, they can’t comply with this strict monthly requirement. 

So there are numerous reports from the ground of people who should be eligible losing their coverage. And I’ll note that one of the last-minute changes the House made was moving up the start date of the requirements. And I’m hearing a lot of state officials and advocates warn that that gives states less time to set up a system where people won’t fall through the cracks. And so the predicted larger savings is in part because they imagine more people will be kicked off the program. 

Rovner: It’s also the most stringent work requirement we’ve seen. It would cover people from age 19 through age 64, like right up until you’re eligible for Medicare. And if you lose Medicaid because you fail to meet these reporting requirements, you’re no longer eligible for a subsidy to buy insurance in the ACA exchange. Is there a policy point to this? Or are they just trying to get the most people off the program so they can get the most savings? 

Edney: If you ask Republicans, they would tell you: We’re going to get people back working. We’re going to give them the pride of working — as if people don’t want that on their own. But the actual outcome is not that people end up working more. And there are cases even where they lose their health insurance and can’t work a job they already had. On the surface, and this is why it’s such a popular program, because it seems like it would get more people working. Even a large swath of Democrats support the idea when they just hear the name — of voters. But the actual outcome, that doesn’t happen. People aren’t in Medicaid because they aren’t working. 

Rovner: Right. And I get to say for the millionth time, nobody is sitting on their couch living on their Medicaid coverage. 

Edney: Right, right. 

Rovner: There’s no money that comes with Medicaid. It’s just health insurance. The health providers get paid for Medicaid and occasionally the managed-care companies. But there’s no check to the beneficiary, so there’s no way to live on your Medicaid. 

As Alice points out, most of the people who are working and have Medicaid are working at jobs, obviously, that don’t offer employer health insurance. So having, in many cases, as you say, Anna, having Medicaid is what enables you to work. 

All right, well, our podcast pals Margot Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff have an excellent Medicaid story out this week on a new study that looks very broadly at Medicaid and finds that it actually does improve the health of its beneficiaries. Now this seems logical, but that has been quite a talking point for Republicans for many years, that we spend all this money and it doesn’t produce better health, because we’ve had a lot of studies that have been kind of neither here nor there on this. 

Do we finally have proof that Democrats need? Because I have heard, over many years — there was a big Oregon study in 2011 that found that it helped people financially and that it helped their mental health, but there was not a lot of physical health benefit that they saw. Of course, it was a brief. It was like two years. And it takes a longer time to figure out the importance of health insurance. But I’m wondering if maybe the Democrats will finally be able to put down that talking point. I didn’t hear it, actually, as much this week as I have in years past: Why are we spending all this money on Medicaid when we don’t know whether it’s producing better health? 

Karlin-Smith: One of the interesting things I thought about this study and sort of the timing of it, post-Obamacare expansion of Medicaid and more younger people being covered, is that it seems to really show that, not only does this study show it saves lives, but it’s really helping these younger populations. 

And I think there are some theories as to why it might have been harder to show the economic cost-effectiveness benefits people were looking for before, when you had Medicaid covering populations that were already either severely ill or older. Which doesn’t mean it’s not valuable, right? To provide health coverage to somebody who’s 75 or 80, but unfortunately we have not found the everlasting secret to life yet. 

So, but I think for economists who want to be able to show this sort of, as they show in this paper, this “quality-adjusted life year” benefit, this provides some really good evidence of what that expansion of Medicaid — which is a lot of what’s being rolled back, potentially, under the reconciliation process — did, which is, helps younger people be healthier and thus, right, hopefully, ideally, live a higher quality of life, and where you need less health coverage over time, and cost the government less. 

It’s quite interesting, for people who want to go look at the graph The New York Times put in their story, of just where Medicaid fits, in terms of other sort of interventions we spend a lot of money on to help save lives. Because I was kind of surprised, given how much health insurance does cover, that it comes out on sort of the lower end, as being a pretty good bargain. 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, we don’t have time to get into everything that’s in this bill, and there is a lot. It also includes a full ban of Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care for both minors and adults. And it cuts reimbursement to states that use their own funds to provide coverage to undocumented people. Is this a twofer for Republicans, saving money while fighting the culture wars? 

Edney: Certainly. And I was surprised to see some very liberal states on the immigration front saying: We just have to deal with this. And this really sucks, but we have to balance our budget. And if we’re not going to get those tax dollars, then we aren’t going to be able to offer health insurance to people who are undocumented, or Medicaid to people who are undocumented. 

Rovner: Yeah, California, most notably. 

Edney: Yeah, California for sure. And they found a way to do it, hit them in the pocketbook, and that that’s a way for them to win the culture war, for sure. 

Rovner: Alice, you’ve spent a lot of time looking at gender-affirming care. Were you surprised to see it banned for adults, too? Obviously the gender-affirming care for minors has been a continuing issue for a while. 

Ollstein: Yeah, I would say not surprised, because this is sort of a common pattern that we see across different things, including in the abortion space, where first policies are targeted just at minors. That often is more politically palatable. And then it gets expanded to the general population. And so I think, given the wave of state bans on care for minors that we’ve seen, I think a lot of people had been projecting that this was the trajectory. 

I think that there’s been some really good reporting from The 19th and other outlets about what an impact this would have. Trans people are disproportionately low-income and dependent on Medicaid, and so this would have really sweeping impacts on a lot of people. 

Rovner: Well, turning to the Affordable Care Act, if you thought Republicans weren’t going to try to repeal the health law this time around, you thought wrong. There are a bucket of provisions in this bill that will make the Affordable Care Act coverage both more expensive and harder to get, so much that some analysts think it could reduce enrollment by as much as half of the 24 million people who have it now. Hasn’t someone told Republicans that many of these people are their voters? 

Edney: Yeah, that’s a good question. I don’t know what the Republican strategists are telling them. But certainly they needed to save money. And so they found their loopholes and their different things that they thought they could scrape from. And maybe no one will notice? But I don’t think that’s going to happen. 

A lot of people suddenly have much higher ACA premiums because of the way they’re going to take away this ability that the insurers have had to silver-load, essentially, the way that they deal with the premium tax credits by setting some of the savings, kind of the cost sharing that they need to do, right into the silver plan, because the silver plan is where the premiums are set off of. And so they were able to offer the plans with lower premiums, essentially, but still get paid for cost-sharing reductions. So they were able to still get that money taken away from them. 

Rovner: So let me see if I can do it. It was, and this was something that Trump tried to do in 2017, that he thought was going to hurt the marketplace plans. And it ended up doing the opposite— 

Edney: Right. 

Rovner: —because it basically shifted money from the insurance companies and the beneficiaries back to the federal government, because it made the premium subsidies bigger. 

So I think the point I want to make is that we’ve been talking all year about these extra subsidies that are going to expire, and that will make premiums go up, and the Republicans did not move to extend those subsidies. But this going back to the government paying these cost-sharing reduction payments is going to basically reverse the accidental lowering of premiums that Trump did in 2017. And therefore, raise them again. 

So now we have a double whammy. We have premiums going up because the extra subsidies expire, and then we’ll have premiums going up even more because they’re going back to this original cost-sharing reduction. And yet, as we have said many times, a lot of these additional people who are now on the Affordable Care Act are people in the very red states that didn’t expand Medicaid. These are Republican voters. 

Karlin-Smith: We haven’t talked a lot about the process of how they got this bill through this week. It was incredibly fast and done literally in the dead of night. 

Ollstein: Multiple nights. 

Karlin-Smith: So you have to wonder, particularly, if you think back to the last time Republicans tried to overturn Obamacare — and they did come pretty close — eventually, I think, that unpalatableness of taking away health care from so many of their own constituents came back to really hurt them. And you do have to wonder if the jamming was in part to make more people unaware of what was happening. You’d still think there’d be political repercussions later down the line when they realize it. But I think, especially, again, just thinking back on all the years when Republicans were saying Democrats were pushing the ACA through too fast and nobody could read the bill, or their CBO scores. This was a much, much faster version of that, with a lot less debate and public transparency and so forth. 

Rovner: Yeah, they went to the Rules Committee at 1 a.m. Wednesday, so Tuesday night. The Rules Committee went until almost 9 o’clock the next evening, just consecutively. And shout out to Rules Committee chairman Virginia Foxx, who sat there for, I think, the entire time. And then they went straight from rules to the floor. 

So it’s now Wednesday night at 10 o’clock at night, and then went all the way through and voted, I think, just before 7 a.m. I’ve done a lot of all-nighters in the Capitol. I haven’t seen one that was two nights in a row like this. And I have great admiration for the people who really were up for 48 hours to push this thing through. 

Well, finally, let’s remember President Trump’s vow not to touch Medicare. Well, Medicare gets touched in this bill, too. In addition to restricting eligibility for some legal immigrants who are able to get coverage now, and making it harder for some low-income Medicare beneficiaries to get extra financial help, mostly through Medicaid, the bill as a whole is also likely to trigger a 4% Medicare sequester. Because, even all those other health cuts and food stamp cuts and other cuts don’t pay for all the huge tax breaks in the bill. Alice, you pointed that out. Is there any suggestion that this part might give people some pause, maybe when it gets to the Senate? 

Edney: I’ve heard the Senate mostly seem upset about Medicaid. And I also feel like this idea that sequestration is coming back up into our consciousness is a little bit new. Like you said, it was pushed through and it was like, Oh, wait, this is enough to trigger sequestration. I think it certainly could become a talking point, because Trump said he would not cut Medicare. I don’t think, if senators are worried about Medicaid — and I think maybe some of us were a little surprised that that is coming from some red-state senators. Medicare is a whole different thing, and in the sense of being even more wildly popular with a lot of members of Congress. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think this whole thing hasn’t, you’re right, sort of seeped into the general consciousness yet. Alice, did you want to say something? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so a couple things, a couple patterns we’ve seen. So one, there are a lot of lawmakers on the right who have been discrediting the CBO, even in advance of estimates coming out, basically disparaging their methodology and trying to convince the public that it’s not accurate. And so I think that’s both around the deficit projections as well as how many people would be uninsured under different policies. So that’s been one reaction to this. 

We’ve seen a pattern over many administrations where certain politicians are very concerned about things adding to the deficit when the opposition party is in power. And suddenly those concerns evaporate when their own party is in power and they don’t mind running up the deficit if it’s to advance policies that they want to advance. And so I think, yes, this could bother some fiscal hawks, and we saw that in the House, but I think, also, these other factors are at play. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think this has a long way to go. There’s still a lot that people, I think you’re right, have not quite realized is in there. And we will get to more of it in coming weeks, because this has a long process in the Senate. 

All right, well, segueing to abortion, the One Big Beautiful Bill also includes a couple of pretty significant abortion provisions. One would effectively ban abortion and marketplace plans for people with lower incomes. Affordable Care Act plans are not currently a big source of insurance coverage for abortion. Many states already ban abortion from coverage in these plans. But this would disrupt one of the big compromises that ultimately got the ACA passed in 2010. 

The other provision would evict Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program, even though federal Medicaid funds don’t and never have been used for abortions. Many, many Medicaid patients use Planned Parenthood for routine medical care, including contraception and cancer screenings, and that is covered by Medicaid. 

But while I see lots of anti-abortion groups taking victory laps over this, when the House passed a similar provision in 2017 as part of its repeal bill, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that it could not go in a budget reconciliation bill, because its purpose was not, quote, “primarily budgetary.” So is this all for show? Or is there a belief that something different might happen this time? 

Ollstein: Well, I think there is more interest in ignoring or overruling the parliamentarian among Senate Republicans than there has been in the past. We’re seeing that now on an unrelated environmental issue. And so that could signal that they’re willing to do it more in the future. Of course, things like that cut both ways, and that raises the idea that the Democrats could also do that the next time they’re in power. 

Rovner: And we should say, that if you overrule the parliamentarian in reconciliation — it’s a she right now — when she says it can’t go in reconciliation, that is equivalent to getting rid of the filibuster. 

Ollstein: Correct. 

Rovner: So I mean, that’s why both parties say, We want to keep the filibuster. But the moment you say, Hey, parliamentarian, we disagree with you and we’re just going to ignore that, that has ramifications way beyond budget reconciliation legislation. 

Ollstein: That’s right. And so that’s been a line that a lot of senators have not been willing to cross, but I think you’re seeing more willingness than before. So that’s definitely something to watch on that. But I think, in terms of abortion, I think this is a real expansion of trends that were already underway, in ever-expanding the concept of what federal dollars going to abortion means. And it’s now in this very indirect way, where it’s reaching into the private insurance market, and it’s using federal funding as a cudgel to prevent groups like Planned Parenthood, and then also these private plans, from using other non-federal money to support abortions. And so it’s a real expansion beyond just you can’t use federal money to pay directly for abortions. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, two other reproductive-associated health stories worth mentioning. In California, a fertility clinic got bombed. The bomber apparently died in the explosion, but this is the first time I can remember a purposeful bombing to a health center that was not an abortion clinic. How significant is it to the debate, that we’re now seeing fertility clinics bombed as well? And what do we know, if anything, about why the bomber went after a fertility clinic? 

Karlin-Smith: There has been, obviously, some pressure on the right, I think, to go after fertility processes, and IVF [in vitro fertilization], and lump that in with abortion. Although, I think Trump and others have pushed back a bit on that, realizing how common and popular some of these fertility treatments are. And also it conflicts, I think, to some extent with their desire to grow the American population. 

The motives of this particular person don’t seem aligned with, I guess, the anti-abortion movement. He sort of seems more anti-natalist movement and stuff. So from that perspective, I didn’t see it as being aligned with kind of a bigger, more common political debate we’ve had recently, which is, again, does the Republican Party want to expand the anti-abortion debate even further into fertility treatments and stuff. 

Rovner: I was going to say, it certainly has drawn fertility clinics into the abortion debate, even if neither side in the abortion debate would presumably have an interest in blowing up a fertility clinic. But it is now sort of, I guess, in the general consciousness of antisocial people, if you will, that’s out there. 

The other story in the news this week is about a woman named Adriana Smith, a nurse and mother from Georgia who was nine weeks pregnant in February when she was declared brain-dead after a medical emergency. Smith has been kept alive on life support ever since, not because her family wants that but because her medical team at Emory University Hospital is worried about running afoul of Georgia’s abortion ban, which prohibits terminations after cardiac activity can be detected. Even if the mother is clinically dead? I feel like this case could have really ominous repercussions at some point. 

Ollstein: Well, I just want to point out that, yes, the state’s abortion ban is playing a role here, but this was happening while Roe v. Wade was still in place. There were cases like this. Some of it has to do with legislation around advanced directives and pregnancy. So I will point out that this is not solely a post-Dobbs phenomenon. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think it also bears watching. Well, there was lots of vaccine news this week — I’m so glad we have Anna and Sarah here — with both the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] and FDA [Food and Drug Administration] declaring an end to recommending covid vaccines for what seems to be most of the population. Sarah, what did they do? And what does this mean? 

Karlin-Smith: So the new director of FDA’s biologics center and the FDA commissioner released a framework for approving covid shots moving forward. And basically they are saying that, because covid, the virus, shifts, and we want to try and update our vaccines at least yearly, usually, to keep up with the changing viruses, but we want to do that in a reasonable time so that by the time when you update the vaccine it’s actually available within that time — right? — FDA has allowed companies to do studies that don’t require full clinical trials anymore, because we sort of have already done those trials. We know these vaccines are safe and effective. We’re making minor tweaks to them, and they do immunogenicity studies, which are studies that basically show they mount the proper immune response. And then they approve them. 

FDA is now, seems to be, saying, We’re only going to allow those studies to approve new covid vaccine updates for people who are over 65, or under 65 and have health conditions, because they are saying, in their mind, the risk-benefit balance of offering these shots doesn’t necessarily pan out favorably for younger, healthier populations, and we should do clinical trials. 

It’s not entirely clear yet, despite them rolling out a framework, how this will actually play out. Can they relabel shots already approved? Will this only impact once companies do need to do a strain change next as the virus adapts? Did they go about doing this in a sort of legal manner? It came out through a journal kind of editorial commentary piece, not through the Federal Register or formal guidance. There’s been no notice of comment. 

So there’s a lot of questions to remain as to how this will be implemented, which products it would affect, and when. But there is a lot of concern that there may be reduced access to the products moving forward. 

Rovner: That’s because the vaccine makers aren’t going to — it’s not probably worth it financially to them — to remount all these studies. Right? 

Karlin-Smith: First off, a lot of people I’ve talked to, and this came up yesterday at a meeting FDA had, don’t believe it’s actually ethical to do some of the studies FDA is now calling for. Even though the benefits, particularly when you’re talking about boosting people who already had a primary vaccination series for covid, or some covid, is not the same as the benefits of getting an original covid vaccine series. 

There still are benefits, and there still are benefits for pretty much everybody that outweigh the risks. On average, these are extremely safe shots. We know a lot about their safety, and the balance is positive. So people are saying, once that exists, you cannot ethically test it on placebo. Even as [FDA Commissioner Marty] Makary says, Well, so many Americans are declining to take the shot, so let’s test it and see. A lot of ethicists would say it’s actually, even if people are willing to do something that may not be ideal for their health, that doesn’t mean it’s ethical to test it in a trial. 

So, I think there’s questions about, just, ethics, but also, right, whether companies would want to invest the time and money it would take to achieve and try to do them under this situation. So that is a big elephant in the room here. And I think some people feel like this is just sort of a push by Makary and his new CBER [Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research] director, essentially, to cut off vaccine access in a little bit of a sneaky way. 

Rovner: Well, I did see, also this week, was I think it was Moderna, that was going to make a combination flu covid vaccine, has decided not to. I assume that’s related to all of this? 

Karlin-Smith: Right. So Moderna had a, what people call a next-generation vaccine, which is supposed to be an improved update over the original shot, which is a bigger deal than just making a strain change. They actually think they provide a better response to protecting against the virus. And then they also added flu vaccine into it to sort of make it easier for people to get protected from both, and also provided solid data to show it would work well for flu. 

And they seem to have probably pulled their application at this point over, again, these new concerns, and what we know Novavax went through in trying to get their covid vaccine across the finish line dealing with this new administration. So I think people have their sort of alert lights up going forward as to how this administration is going to handle vaccine approvals and what that will mean for access going forward. 

Rovner: Well, in somewhat related news, we got the long-awaited report from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again Commission, which is supposed to lay out a blueprint for an action plan that will come later this summer. Not much in the 68-page report seems all that surprising. Some is fairly noncontroversial, calling for more study of ultra-processed foods and less screen time and more physical activity for kids. 

And some is controversial but at this point kind of predictable, calling for another look at the childhood vaccine schedule, including, as we just discussed, more placebo studies for vaccines, and also less fluoride available, except in toothpaste. Anything jump out at you guys from the report that we should keep an eye on? 

Karlin-Smith: I think one thing to think about is what it doesn’t address and doesn’t talk about. It’s not surprising the issues they call out for harming health in America, and some of them are debatable as to how much they do or don’t harm health, or whether their solutions would actually address those problems. 

But they never talk about the U.S.’ lack of a health insurance system that assures people have coverage. They don’t mention the Republican Party’s and likely president’s willingness to sign onto a major bill that’s going to impact health. They don’t really talk about the socioeconomic drivers that impact health, which I find particularly interesting when they talk about food, because, obviously, the U.S. has a lot of healthy and unhealthy food available. And a lot of people know sort of how they could make better choices, but there are these situational factors outside of, often, an individual’s control to lead to that. 

And I think the other thing that jumped out to me is, I think The Washington Post had a good line in their paragraph about just how many of the points are either overstated or misstated scientific findings. And they did a pretty good job of going through some of those. And it’s a difficult situation, I think, for the public to grapple with when you have leadership and the top echelons of our health department that is pushing so much misinformation, often very carefully, and having to weed out what is correct, where is the grains of truth, where does it go off into misinformation. 

I don’t know. I find it really hard as a journalist. And so I do worry about, again, how this all plays into public perception and misunderstanding of these topics. 

Rovner: And apparently they forgot about gun violence in all of this, which is rather notably not there. 

Ollstein: Cars and guns are the big killers. And yeah, no mention of that. 

Edney: I thought another glaring omission was tobacco. Kids are using e-cigarettes at high rates. We don’t really know much about them. And to Sarah’s point about misinformation, too, I think the hard part of being able to discern a lot of this, even as a member of the public, is everything they’ve done so far is only rhetoric. There hasn’t been actual regulation, or — this could be anything that you’re talking about. It could be food dyes. It could be “most favored nations.” We don’t know what they actually want to implement and what the potential for doing so — I think maybe on vaccines we’re seeing the most action. But as Sarah mentioned, we don’t know how that, whether it legally is going to be something that they can continue doing. 

So even with this report, it was highly anticipated, but I don’t think we got anything beyond what I probably heard Kennedy say over and over throughout the campaign and in his bid for health secretary. So I am wondering when they actually decide to move into the policymaking part of it, instead of just telling us they’re going to do something. 

Rovner: And interestingly, Secretary Kennedy was interviewed on CNN last night and walked back some of the timelines, even, including that vow that they were going to know the cause of autism by September and that they were going to have an action plan for this ready in another, I think, a hundred days. So this is going to be a hurry-up-and-wait. 

All right, well, that is as much news as we have time for in this incredibly busy week. Now we will play my interview with law professor and abortion historian Mary Ziegler, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast Mary Ziegler, the Martin Luther King Jr. professor of law at the University of California-Davis. She’s also a historian of the abortion movement. And her newest book, just out, is called “Personhood: The New Civil War Over Reproduction.” 

Mary Ziegler, thanks for joining us again. 

Mary Ziegler: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So we’ve talked about personhood a lot on our podcast, including with you, but it means different things to different people. What’s your working definition, at least for the purpose of this book? 

Ziegler: Yeah, I’m interested in this book in the legal fight for personhood, right? Some people have religious ideas of personhood. Bioethicists have ideas of personhood. Philosophers debate personhood. But I’m really interested in the legal claim that the word “person” in the 14th Amendment, which gives us liberty and equality, applies the moment an egg is fertilized. Because it’s that legal claim that’s had a lot of knock-on effects with abortion, with IVF, and potentially even beyond. 

Rovner: So if we as a society were to accept that fetuses or embryos or zygotes were people with full constitutional rights at the moment of creation, that can impact things way beyond abortion, right? 

Ziegler: Definitely, yeah, especially if you make the moves that the anti-abortion movement, or the pro-life movement, in the United States has made, right? So one of the other things that’s probably worth saying is, if you believe the claim I laid out about fetal personhood, that doesn’t mean you necessarily think abortion should be criminalized or that IVF should be criminalized, either. 

But the people who are leading the anti-abortion movement do, in large part, right? So it would have ramifications in lots of other contexts, because there’s a conclusion not only that human life begins at fertilization and that constitutional rights begin at fertilization but that the way you honor those constitutional rights is primarily by restricting or criminalizing certain things that threaten that life, in the views of the people who advocate for it. 

Rovner: Right. And that includes IVF and forms of contraception. That’s where we sort of get to this idea that an abortion is murder or that, in this case, doing anything that harms even a zygote is murder. 

Ziegler: Yeah. And it gets us to the Adriana Smith case in Georgia, too. So there’s sort of end-of-life cases that emerge. So, it obviously would have a big impact on abortion. So it’s not wrong to think about abortion in this context. It’s just that would definitely not be the stopping point. 

Rovner: So, many people have only talked about personhood, really, since the Supreme Court overturned Roe in 2022, but the concept is a lot older than that. I started covering personhood in like 2010, I think, when a couple of states were trying to vote on it. I didn’t realize until I read your book that it goes back well beyond even that. 

Ziegler: Yeah. So I think a lot of people had that conception. And in the 2010s, there were state constitutional amendment efforts to write the idea of fetal personhood into state constitutions. And they all failed. So I think the narrative coming out of that was that you had the anti-abortion movement on the one hand, and then you had this more extreme fetal personhood movement on the other hand. 

And that narrative fundamentally is wrong. There is no one in the anti-abortion movement who’s opposed to fetal personhood. There are disagreements about how and when it can be recognized. There’s strategic disagreements. There are no substantive disagreements much to speak of on the basics of fetal personhood. 

So the idea goes all the way back to the 1960s, when states were first reforming the 19th-century criminal laws you sometimes see coming back to life as zombie laws. And initially it started as a strategic necessity, because it was very hard for the early anti-abortion movement to stop this reform wave, right? They were saying things like, Oh, abortion is going to lead to more sexual promiscuity, or, No one really needs abortion, because pregnancy is no longer dangerous. And that just wasn’t getting the job done. 

So they began to argue that no one had a choice to legalize abortion in worse circumstances, because it would violate the rights of the unborn child. What’s interesting is that argument went from being this kind of strategic expedient to being this tremendously emotionally resonant long-term thing that has lived on the American right for now like a half-century. Even in moments when, I think arguably like right now, when it’s not politically smart to be making the argument, people will continue to, because this speaks to something, I think, for a lot of people who are opposed to abortion and other things like IVF. 

Rovner: I know you’ve got access in writing this book to a lot of internal documents from people in the anti-abortion movement. I’m jealous, I have to say. Was there something there that surprised you? 

Ziegler: Yeah, I think I was somewhat surprised by how much people talked this language of personhood when they were alone, right? This was not just something for the consumption of judges, or the consumption of politicians, or sort of like a nicer way to talk about what people really wanted. This was what people said when there was no one else there. 

That didn’t mean they didn’t say other things that suggested that there were lots of other values and beliefs underlying this concept of personhood. But I think one of the important lessons of that is if you’re trying to understand people who are opposed to abortion, just assuming that everything they’re saying is just pure strategy is not helpful, right? Any more than it would be for people who support reproductive rights, to have it assume that everything they’re saying is not genuine. You just fail to understand what people are doing, I think. And I think that was probably what I was the most surprised about. 

Rovner: I was struck that you point out that personhood doesn’t have to begin and end with the criminalization of abortion. How could more acceptance of the rights of the unborn change society in perhaps less polarized ways? 

Ziegler: Yeah, one of the things that’s really striking is that there are other countries that recognize a right to life for a fetus or unborn child that don’t criminalize abortion or don’t enforce criminal abortion laws. And often what they say is that it’s not OK for the state to start with criminalization when it isn’t doing things to support pregnant women, who after all are necessary for a fetus or unborn child to survive, right? 

So there are strategies that you could use to reduce infant mortality, for example, to reduce neonatal mortality, to reduce miscarriage and stillbirth, to improve maternal health, to really eliminate some of the reasons that people who may want, all things being equal, to carry a child to term. That’s not, obviously, going to be everybody. Some people don’t want to be parents at all. 

But there are other people for whom it’s a matter of resources, or it’s a matter of overcoming racial discrimination, or it’s a matter of leaving an abusive relationship. And if governments were more committed to doing some of those things, it’s reasonable to assume that a subset of those people would carry pregnancies to term, right? 

So there are lots of ways that if a state were serious about honoring fetal life, that it could. I think one of the other things that’s striking that I realized in writing the book is that that tracks with what a subset of Americans think. You’ll find these artifacts in polls where you’ll get something like 33% of people in Pew Forum’s 2022 poll saying they thought that life and rights began at conception, but also that abortion shouldn’t be criminalized. 

So there are a subset of Americans who, whether they’re coming from a place of faith or otherwise, can hold those two beliefs at once. So I think an interesting question is, could we have a politics that accommodates that kind of belief? And at the moment the answer is probably not, but it’s interesting to imagine how that could change. 

Rovner: It’s nice to know that there is a place that we can hope to get. 

Ziegler: Yeah, exactly. 

Rovner: Mary Ziegler, thank you so much for joining us again. 

Ziegler: Thanks for having me. 

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

Karlin-Smith: I purposely chose a sort of light story from Australia, where scientists studied remote work, and the headline is “[Scientists Have Been Studying Remote Work for Four Years and Have] Reached a Very Clear Conclusion: ‘Working From Home Makes Us Happier.’” And it just goes through some of the benefits and perks people have found from working remotely, including more sleep, more time with friends and family, things like that. And it just felt like a nice, interesting read in a time where there’s a lot of heavy health news. 

Rovner: Also, scientific evidence of things that I think we all could have predicted. Anna. 

Edney: Apologies for going the other direction here, but it’s a story that I wrote this week, an investigation that I’ve been working on for a long time, “The Potential Cancer, Health Risks Lurking in One Popular OTC Drug.” So this is one, in particularly a lot of women have used. You can go in any CVS, Target, Walmart, stores like that, and buy it. Called Azo, for urinary tract infections. And all these stores sell their own generic versions as well, under phenazopyridine. 

And this drug, I was kind of shocked to learn, is not FDA-approved. There are prescription versions that are not FDA-approved, either. It’s just been around so long that it’s been grandfathered in. And that may not be a big deal, except that this one, the FDA has raised questions about whether it causes cancer and whether it needs a stronger cancer warning, because the National Cancer Institute found in 1978 that it causes tumors in rats and mice. But no other work has been done on this drug, because it hasn’t been approved. So no one’s looked at it in humans. And it masks issues that really need antibiotics and causes a host of other issues. 

There were — University of Virginia toxicologists told me they found, in the last 20 years, at least 200 suspected teen suicides where they used this drug, because of how dangerous this drug can be in any higher amounts than what’s on the box. So I went through this drug, but there are other ones on the market as well that are not approved. And there’s this whole FDA system that has allowed the OTC [over-the-counter] market to be pretty lax. 

Rovner: OK, that’s terrifying. But thank you for your work. Alice. 

Ollstein: Speaking of terrifying, I chose a piece from NPR called, “Diseases Are Spreading. The CDC Isn’t Warning the Public Like It Was Months Ago.” And this is a look at all of the ways our public health agency that is supposed to be letting us know when outbreaks are happening, and where, and how to protect ourselves, they’ve gone dark. They are not posting on social media. They are not sending out alerts. They are not sending out newsletters. And it walks through the danger of all of that happening, with interviews with people who are still on the inside and on the outside experiencing the repercussions. 

Rovner: Well, my extra credit, it helps explain why Alice’s extra credit, because it’s about all the people who were doing that who have been fired or laid off from the federal government. It’s called, “White House Officials Wanted To Put Federal Workers ‘in Trauma.’ It’s Working,” by William Wan and Hannah Natanson. 

And it’s the result of interviews with more than 30 current and former federal workers, along with the families of some who died or killed themselves. And it’s a review of documents to confirm those stories. It’s a super-depressing but beautifully told piece about the dramatic mental health impact of the federal DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] layoffs and firings, and the impact that that’s been having on these workers, their families, and their communities. 

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

Edney: Both of those [X and Bluesky], @annaedney. 

Rovner: Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: Everywhere — X, Bluesky, LinkedIn, @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith. 

Rovner: Alice. 

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

Rovner: I am off to California next week, where we’ll be taping the podcast at the annual meeting of the Association for Health Care Journalists, which we won’t post until the following Monday. So everyone please have a great Memorial Day holiday week. And until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Rebecca Adams
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Estos estados, la mayoría liderados por demócratas, dan seguro médico a algunos inmigrantes de bajos ingresos —a menudo niños—, independientemente de su estatus migratorio. Defensores argumentan que la política es humanitaria y que, en última instancia, ahorra costos.

Sin embargo, la legislación federal, que los republicanos han denominado One Big Beautiful Bill (Un hermoso gran proyecto de ley), recortaría drásticamente los reembolsos federales de Medicaid a esos estados en miles de millones de dólares anuales en total, a menos que reduzcan esos beneficios.

El proyecto de ley fue aprobado por un estrecho margen en la Cámara de Representantes el jueves 22 de mayo, y ahora pasa al Senado.

Si bien avanza gran parte de la agenda nacional de Trump, incluyendo grandes recortes de impuestos que benefician principalmente a los estadounidenses más ricos, la legislación también realiza recortes sustanciales del gasto en Medicaid que, según los responsables del presupuesto del Congreso, dejará a millones de personas de bajos ingresos sin seguro médico.

De ser aprobados por el Senado, estos recortes representarían un complejo obstáculo político y económico para los estados y Washington, DC, que utilizan sus propios fondos para brindar seguro médico a algunas personas que viven en Estados Unidos sin autorización.

Estos estados verían reducidos en 10 puntos porcentuales los reembolsos federales para las personas cubiertas por la expansión de Medicaid que se realize bajo la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA).

Estos recortes le costarían a California, el estado que más tiene que perder, hasta $3 mil millones al año, según un análisis de KFF, una organización sin fines de lucro dedicada a información de salud que incluye a KFF Health News.

En conjunto, los 15 lugares afectados (los 14 estados y DC) cubren a aproximadamente 1.9 millones de inmigrantes sin papeles, según KFF. La entidad indica que la sanción también podría aplicarse a otros estados que cubren a inmigrantes con residencia legal.

Dos de los estados, Illinois y Utah, tienen leyes de “activación” que exigen terminar con sus expansiones de Medicaid si el gobierno federal reduce su aporte de fondos. Esto significa que, a menos que esos estados deroguen sus leyes de activación o dejen de cubrir a las personas sin estatus migratorio legal, muchos más estadounidenses de bajos ingresos podrían quedarse sin seguro.

Si continúan cubriendo a personas sin papeles, a partir del año fiscal 2027, los estados restantes y Washington, DC, tendrían que aportar millones o miles de millones de dólares adicionales cada año, para compensar las reducciones en sus reembolsos federales de Medicaid.

Después de California, Nueva York podría perder la mayor parte de la financiación federal: cerca de 1.600 millones de dólares anuales, según KFF.

El senador estatal de California, Scott Wiener, demócrata y presidente del Comité de Presupuesto del Senado, afirmó que la legislación de Trump ha sembrado el caos mientras los legisladores estatales trabajan para aprobar su propio presupuesto antes del 15 de junio.

“Tenemos que mantenernos firmes”, declaró. “California ha decidido que queremos una atención médica universal y que vamos a garantizar que todos tengan acceso a la atención médica, y que no vamos a permitir que millones de personas indocumentadas reciban atención primaria en salas de emergencia”.

El gobernador de California, el demócrata Gavin Newsom, declaró en un comunicado que el proyecto de ley de Trump devastaría la atención médica en su estado.

“Millones de personas perderán cobertura, los hospitales cerrarán y las redes de seguridad social podrían colapsar bajo ese peso”, dijo Newsom.

En su propuesta de presupuesto del 14 de mayo, Newsom instó a los legisladores a recortar algunos beneficios para inmigrantes sin papeles, citando el aumento desmedido de los costos del programa estatal de Medicaid. Si el Congreso recorta los fondos para la expansión de Medicaid, el estado no estaría en condiciones de cubrir los gastos, afirmó el gobernador.

Newsom cuestionó si el Congreso tiene la autoridad para penalizar a los estados por cómo gastan su propio dinero, y afirmó que su estado consideraría impugnar la medida en los tribunales.

El representante estatal de Utah, Jim Dunnigan, republicano que ayudó a impulsar un proyecto de ley para cubrir a los niños en su estado independientemente de su estatus migratorio, afirmó que Utah necesita mantener la expansión de Medicaid que comenzó en 2020.

“No podemos permitirnos, ni monetaria ni políticamente, que se recorten nuestros fondos federales para la expansión”, declaró. Dunnigan no especificó si cree que el estado debería cancelar su cobertura para inmigrantes si la disposición republicana sobre sanciones se convierte en ley.

El programa de Utah cubre a unos 2.000 niños, el máximo permitido por su ley. Los inmigrantes adultos sin estatus legal no son elegibles. La expansión de Medicaid de Utah cubre a unos 75.000 adultos, quienes deben ser ciudadanos o inmigrantes con residencia legal.

Matt Slonaker, director ejecutivo del Utah Health Policy Project, una organización de defensa del consumidor, afirmó que el proyecto de ley de la Cámara federal deja al estado en una posición difícil.

“Políticamente, no hay grandes alternativas”, declaró. “Es el dilema del prisionero: cualquier movimiento en cualquier dirección no tiene mucho sentido”.

Slonaker apuntó que un escenario probable es que los legisladores estatales eliminen su ley de activación, y luego encuentren la manera de compensar la pérdida de fondos federales para la expansión.

Utah ha financiado su parte del costo de la expansión de Medicaid con impuestos sobre las ventas y los hospitales.

“El Congreso pondría al estado de Utah en posición de tener que tomar una decisión política muy difícil”, declaró Slonaker.

En Illinois, la sanción del Partido Republicano tendría incluso consecuencias más graves. Esto se debe a que podría llevar a que 770.000 adultos perdieran la cobertura médica que obtuvieron con la expansión estatal de Medicaid.

Stephanie Altman, directora de justicia sanitaria del Shriver Center on Poverty Law, un grupo de defensa con sede en Chicago, afirmó que es posible que su estado, liderado por demócratas, derogue su ley de activación antes de permitir que se dé por terminada la expansión de Medicaid.

Agregó que el estado también podría eludir la sanción solicitando a los condados que financien la cobertura para inmigrantes. “Obviamente, sería una situación difícil”, declaró.

Altman indicó que el proyecto de ley de la Cámara de Representantes parece redactado para penalizar a los estados controlados por demócratas, ya que estos suelen brindar cobertura a inmigrantes sin importar su estatus migratorio.

Agregó que la disposición demuestra la “hostilidad de los republicanos contra los inmigrantes” y que “no quieren que vengan aquí y reciban cobertura pública”.

Mike Johnson, el presidente de la Cámara de Representantes de Estados Unidos, declaró en mayo que los programas estatales que brindan cobertura pública a personas sin importar su estatus migratorio actúan como un “felpudo abierto”, invitando a más personas a cruzar la frontera sin autorización. Afirmó que los esfuerzos para eliminar estos programas cuentan con el apoyo de las encuestas públicas.

Una encuesta de Reuters-Ipsos realizada entre el 16 y el 18 de mayo reveló que el 47% de los estadounidenses aprueba las políticas migratorias de Trump y el 45% las desaprueba. La encuesta reveló que el índice de aprobación general de Trump ha caído 5 puntos porcentuales desde que regresó al cargo en enero, hasta el 42%, con un 52% de los estadounidenses desaprobando su gestión.

ACA, también conocida como Obamacare, impulsó a los estados a ampliar Medicaid a adultos con ingresos de hasta el 138% del nivel federal de pobreza, o $21.597 por persona este año. Cuarenta estados y Washington, DC, ampliaron su cobertura, lo que contribuyó a reducir la tasa nacional de personas sin seguro a un mínimo histórico.

El gobierno federal ahora cubre el 90% de los costos de las personas incluidas en Medicaid gracias a la ampliación del Obamacare.

En los estados que cubren la atención médica de inmigrantes sin autorización, el proyecto de ley republicano reduciría la contribución del gobierno federal del 90% al 80% del costo de la cobertura para cualquier persona que se incorpore a Medicaid bajo la expansión de ACA.

Por ley, los fondos federales de Medicaid no pueden utilizarse para cubrir a personas que se encuentran en el país papeles, excepto para servicios de embarazo y emergencias.

Los otros estados que utilizan sus propios fondos para cubrir a personas sin importar su estatus migratorio son: Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nueva Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont y Washington, según KFF.

Ryan Long, director de relaciones con el Congreso del Paragon Health Institute, un influyente grupo político conservador, afirmó que incluso si utilizan sus propios fondos para la cobertura de inmigrantes, los estados aún dependen de los fondos federales para “apoyar sistemas que faciliten la inscripción de inmigrantes indocumentados”.

Long afirmó que la preocupación por que los estados con leyes de activación puedan ver finalizada la expansión de Medicaid es una “pista falsa”, ya que los estados tienen la opción de eliminar sus activadores, como hizo Michigan en 2023.

La sanción por ofrecer cobrtura de salud a personas en el país sin papeles es una de las distintas maneras en que el proyecto de ley de la Cámara de Representantes recorta el gasto federal en Medicaid.

La legislación también trasladaría más costos de Medicaid a los estados al exigirles que verifiquen si los adultos cubiertos por el programa trabajan. Los estados también tendrían que recertificar la elegibilidad de los beneficiarios de la expansión de Medicaid cada seis meses, en lugar de una vez al año o menos, como lo hacen actualmente la mayoría.

El proyecto de ley también congelaría la práctica de los estados de gravar con impuestos a hospitales, residencias de adultos mayores, planes de atención médica administrada y otras compañías de atención médica para financiar su parte de los costos de Medicaid.

En una estimación preliminar del 11 de mayo, la Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso (CBO) indicó que, según el proyecto de ley aprobado por la Cámara de Representantes, alrededor de 8,6 millones de personas más perderían la cobertura médica en 2034.

Esa cifra aumentará a casi 14 millones, según la CBO, después que la administración Trump finalice las nuevas regulaciones de ACA y, si el Congreso, liderado por los republicanos, como se prevé, se niegue a extender los subsidios mejorados para ayudar a pagar las primas de los planes de salud comerciales vendidos a través de los mercados del Obamacare.

Los subsidios mejorados, una prioridad del ex presidente Joe Biden, eliminaron por completo las primas mensuales para algunas personas que adquirieran planes de Obamacare. Y expiran a fin de año.

Esta historia fue producida por Kaiser Health News, que publica California Healthline, un servicio editorialmente independiente de la California Health Care Foundation.

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).

President Donald Trump’s signature budget legislation would punish 14 states that offer health coverage to people in the U.S. without authorization.

The states, most of them Democratic-led, provide insurance to some low-income immigrants — often children — regardless of their legal status. Advocates argue the policy is both humane and ultimately cost-saving.

But the federal legislation, which Republicans have titled the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” would slash federal Medicaid reimbursements to those states by billions of dollars a year in total unless they roll back the benefits.

The bill narrowly passed the House on Thursday and next moves to the Senate. While enacting much of Trump’s domestic agenda, including big tax cuts largely benefiting wealthier Americans, the legislation also makes substantial spending cuts to Medicaid that congressional budget scorekeepers say will leave millions of low-income people without health insurance.

The cuts, if approved by the Senate, would pose a tricky political and economic hurdle for the states and Washington, D.C., which use their own funds to provide health insurance to some people in the U.S. without authorization.

Those states would see their federal reimbursement for people covered under the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion cut by 10 percentage points. The cuts would cost California, the state with the most to lose, as much as $3 billion a year, according to an analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Together, the 15 affected places cover about 1.9 million immigrants without legal status, according to KFF. The penalty might also apply to other states that cover lawfully residing immigrants, KFF says.

Two of the states — Utah and Illinois — have “trigger” laws that call for their Medicaid expansions to terminate if the feds reduce their funding match. That means unless those states either repeal their trigger laws or stop covering people without legal immigration status, many more low-income Americans could be left uninsured.

The remaining states and Washington, D.C., would have to come up with millions or billions more dollars every year, starting in the 2027 fiscal year, to make up for reductions in their federal Medicaid reimbursements, if they keep covering people in the U.S. without authorization.

Behind California, New York stands to lose the most federal funding — about $1.6 billion annually, according to KFF.

California state Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat who chairs the Senate budget committee, said Trump’s legislation has sown chaos as state legislators work to pass their own budget by June 15.

“We need to stand our ground,” he said. “California has made a decision that we want universal health care and that we are going to ensure that everyone has access to health care, and that we’re not going to have millions of undocumented people getting their primary care in emergency rooms.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement that Trump’s bill would devastate health care in his state.

“Millions will lose coverage, hospitals will close, and safety nets could collapse under the weight,” Newsom said.

In his May 14 budget proposal, Newsom called on lawmakers to cut some benefits for immigrants without legal status, citing ballooning costs in the state’s Medicaid program. If Congress cuts Medicaid expansion funding, the state would be in no position to backfill, the governor said.

Newsom questioned whether Congress has the authority to penalize states for how they spend their own money and said his state would consider challenging the move in court.

Utah state Rep. Jim Dunnigan, a Republican who helped spearhead a bill to cover children in his state regardless of their immigration status, said Utah needs to maintain its Medicaid expansion that began in 2020.

“We cannot afford, monetary-wise or policy-wise, to see our federal expansion funding cut,” he said. Dunnigan wouldn’t say whether he thinks the state should end its immigrant coverage if the Republican penalty provision becomes law.

Utah’s program covers about 2,000 children, the maximum allowed under its law. Adult immigrants without legal status are not eligible. Utah’s Medicaid expansion covers about 75,000 adults, who must be citizens or lawfully present immigrants.

Matt Slonaker, executive director of the Utah Health Policy Project, a consumer advocacy organization, said the federal House bill leaves the state in a difficult position.

“There are no great alternatives, politically,” he said. “It’s a prisoner’s dilemma — a move in either direction does not make much sense.”

Slonaker said one likely scenario is that state lawmakers eliminate their trigger law then find a way to make up the loss of federal expansion funding.

Utah has funded its share of the cost of Medicaid expansion with sales and hospital taxes.

“This is a very hard political decision that Congress would put the state of Utah in,” Slonaker said.

In Illinois, the GOP penalty would have even larger consequences. That’s because it could lead to 770,000 adults’ losing the health coverage they gained under the state’s Medicaid expansion.

Stephanie Altman, director of health care justice at the Shriver Center on Poverty Law, a Chicago-based advocacy group, said it’s possible her Democratic-led state would end its trigger law before allowing its Medicaid expansion to terminate. She said the state might also sidestep the penalty by asking counties to fund coverage for immigrants. “It would be a hard situation, obviously,” she said.

Altman said the House bill appeared written to penalize Democratic-controlled states because they more commonly provide immigrants coverage without regard for their legal status.

She said the provision shows Republicans’ “hostility against immigrants” and that “they do not want them coming here and receiving public coverage.”

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson said this month that state programs that provide public coverage to people regardless of immigration status serve as “an open doormat,” inviting more people to cross the border without authorization. He said efforts to end such programs have support in public polling.

A Reuters-Ipsos poll conducted May 16-18 found that 47% of Americans approve of Trump’s immigration policies and 45% disapprove. The poll found that Trump’s overall approval rating has sunk 5 percentage points since he returned to office in January, to 42%, with 52% of Americans disapproving of his performance.

The Affordable Care Act, widely known as Obamacare, enabled states to expand Medicaid to adults with incomes of up to 138% of the federal poverty level, or $21,597 for an individual this year. Forty states and Washington, D.C., expanded, helping reduce the national uninsured rate to a historic low.

The federal government now pays 90% of the costs for people added to Medicaid under the Obamacare expansion.

In states that cover health care for immigrants in the U.S. without authorization, the Republican bill would reduce the federal government’s contribution from 90% to 80% of the cost of coverage for anyone added to Medicaid under the ACA expansion.

By law, federal Medicaid funds cannot be used to cover people who are in the country without authorization, except for pregnancy and emergency services.

The other states that use their own money to cover people regardless of immigration status are Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, according to KFF.

Ryan Long, director of congressional relations at Paragon Health Institute, an influential conservative policy group, said that even if they use their own money for immigrant coverage, states still depend on federal funds to “support systems that facilitate enrollment of illegal aliens.”

Long said the concern that states with trigger laws could see their Medicaid expansion end is a “red herring” because states have the option to remove their triggers, as Michigan did in 2023.

The penalty for covering people in the country without authorization is one of several ways the House bill cuts federal Medicaid spending.

The legislation would shift more Medicaid costs to states by requiring them to verify whether adults covered by the program are working. States would also have to recertify Medicaid expansion enrollees’ eligibility every six months, rather than once a year or less, as most states currently do.

The bill would also freeze states’ practice of taxing hospitals, nursing homes, managed-care plans, and other health care companies to fund their share of Medicaid costs.

The Congressional Budget Office said in a May 11 preliminary estimate that, under the House-passed bill, about 8.6 million more people would be without health insurance in 2034. That number will rise to nearly 14 million, the CBO estimates, after the Trump administration finishes new ACA regulations and if the Republican-led Congress, as expected, declines to extend enhanced premium subsidies for commercial insurance plans sold through Obamacare marketplaces.

The enhanced subsidies, a priority of former President Joe Biden, eliminated monthly premiums altogether for some people buying Obamacare plans. They are set to expire at the end of the year.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

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).