The Host

Julie Rovner
KHN

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

President Joe Biden’s fiscal 2024 budget proposal includes new policies and funding boosts for many of the Democratic Party’s important constituencies, including advocates for people with disabilities and reproductive rights. It also proposes ways to shore up Medicare’s dwindling Hospital Insurance Trust Fund without cutting benefits, basically daring Republicans to match him on the politically potent issue.

Meanwhile, five women in Texas who were denied abortions when their pregnancies threatened their lives or the viability of the fetuses they were carrying are suing the state. They charge that the language of Texas’ abortion ban makes it impossible for doctors to provide needed care without fear of enormous fines or prison sentences.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, Victoria Knight of Axios, and Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Panelists

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@Shefalil

Read Shefali's stories

Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times

@sangerkatz

Read Margot's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Biden’s budget manages to toe the line between preserving Medicare and keeping the Medicare trust fund solvent while advancing progressive policies. Republicans have yet to propose a budget, but it seems likely any GOP plan would lean heavily on cuts to Medicaid and subsidies provided under the Affordable Care Act. Democrats will fight both of those.
• Even though the president’s budget includes something of a Democratic “wish list” of social policy priorities, the proposals are less sweeping than those made last year. Rather, many — such as extending to private insurance the $35 monthly Medicare cost cap for insulin — build on achievements already realized. That puts new focus on things the president has accomplished.
• Walgreens, the nation’s second-largest pharmacy chain, is caught up in the abortion wars. In January, the chain said it would apply for certification from the FDA to sell the abortion pill mifepristone in states where abortion is legal. However, last week, under threats from Republican attorneys general in states where abortion is still legal, the chain wavered on whether it would seek to sell the pill there or not, which caused a backlash from both abortion rights proponents and opponents.
• The five women suing Texas after being denied abortions amid dangerous pregnancy complications are not asking for the state’s ban to be lifted. Rather, they’re seeking clarification about who qualifies for exceptions to the ban, so doctors and hospitals can provide needed care without fear of prosecution.
• Although anti-abortion groups have for decades insisted that those who have abortions should not be prosecuted, bills introduced in several state legislatures would do exactly that. In South Carolina, those who have abortions could even be subject to the death penalty. So far none of these bills have passed, but the wave of measures could herald a major policy change.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Harris Meyer, who reported and wrote the two latest KHN-NPR “Bill of the Month” features. Both were about families facing unexpected bills after childbirth. If you have an outrageous or exorbitant medical bill you want to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: KHN’s “Girls in Texas Could Get Birth Control at Federal Clinics, Until a Christian Father Objected,” by Sarah Varney

Shefali Luthra: The 19th’s “Language for Treating Childhood Obesity Carries Its Own Health Risks to Kids, Experts Say,” by Jennifer Gerson

Victoria Knight: KHN’s “After People on Medicaid Die, Some States Aggressively Seek Repayment From Their Estates,” by Tony Leys

Margot Sanger-Katz: ProPublica’s “How Obamacare Enabled a Multibillion-Dollar Christian Health Care Cash Grab,” by J. David McSwane and Ryan Gabrielson

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “The Programs You’d Have to Cut to Balance the Budget,” by Alicia Parlapiano, Margot Sanger-Katz, and Josh Katz

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Biden Budget Touches All the Bases

KHN’s “What the Health?”Episode Title: Biden Budget Touches All the BasesEpisode Number: 288Published: March 10, 2023

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to KHN’s “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at Kaiser Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We are taping this week on Friday, March 10, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Shefali Luthra: Hello.

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios News.

Victoria Knight: Hi. Good morning.

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

Margot Sanger Katz: Hello, everybody.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my “Bill of the Month” interview with Harris Meyer. It’s a twofer this time: two successive bills from two different families related to having a baby. But first, this week’s news. We are taping on Friday this week because President [Joe] Biden released his budget Thursday afternoon, and it felt weird to have a news podcast without talking about the budget. And yes, like most presidential budgets since the 1980s, this one is, quote-unquote, “dead on arrival” on Capitol Hill. But one thing the president’s budget does is provide a pretty-detailed look at the administration’s priorities and policy initiatives. Which health program stuck out to you as getting a publicity, if not an actual funding, boost in this document? Victoria, you were looking at the budget.

Knight: Yeah. My colleagues at Axios and I spent several hours yesterday morning going through the budget. I think it was really interesting because I think he was trying to toe the line between “we want to save Medicare, make sure it stays solvent,” but also “we want to push some more progressive ideas as well.” So there’s kind of both things in there. Some obvious things: He wants to permanently extend the enhanced tax credits for the ACA [Affordable Care Act] — so, make permanent those subsidies. Those expire, currently, at the end of 2025. He also wanted to do something called Medicaid-like coverage for eligible people in states that haven’t expanded Medicaid. And then he also wants to expand the number of drugs to be negotiated under the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] and also move up the timeline a little bit. So, just an example: It’s supposed to be 10 drugs to be negotiated in 2026. And now he wants to do 20. Something also really interesting: [He] wants to do like a Netflix-like subscription service for hepatitis C to basically eradicate hepatitis C within the U.S.

Rovner: I thought that was maybe the most interesting thing in this budget because it’s something that we just hadn’t heard of before.

Knight: Yeah.

Rovner: That, basically, I mean, these hepatitis C drugs were really expensive when they first came out and there was concern that Medicaid programs, in particular, were going to have trouble paying for them because many of the people who have hepatitis C are intravenous drug users, and they’re more likely to get hepatitis C — or people in prison. Lots of people on Medicaid who have hepatitis C. And this would basically be a way to pay in advance for the drugs. Is that essentially what they would do?

Knight: Yeah. And I think it’s also interesting that it at least has one Republican senator — Bill Cassidy is super into this idea. He did something similar in Louisiana. I’m not sure there’s other Republicans that are on board for that, but I thought that was really interesting. You know, of course, he was talking about extending the $35 insulin cap to the commercial market. There’s some other stuff about behavioral health, pandemic preparedness. One other thing Shefali will appreciate also, he proposed increasing Title X family planning funding by almost 80% from 2023 levels, which I think — Shefali, maybe you know — [is] one of the highest increases they’ve ever proposed, in a while at least.

Luthra: Yeah, the family planning clinics, interest groups, etc., were very, very happy about this proposal, even if they know it will not become reality. I think their sense was this was a commitment that would be really transformative for them, especially now, when they are so tightly funded.

Rovner: I did notice that for a president who has not technically said that he’s running again, some of these targeted increases were for some of the very important interest groups who have been kind of, I won’t say whining, but complaining. You know, Title X had not gotten big increases since Biden became president. There’s an initiative for more money for home- and community-based care in Medicaid, which is something, again, there’s an active constituency for in the Democratic Party; the “Cancer Moonshot,” you know, which has obviously been something near and dear to President Biden’s heart; also more money … also, the [American] Cancer Society sent out a lot of emails yesterday saying, yay, thanks for proposing this big budget increase. So there does certainly seem to be a lot of touching of the important constituencies, perhaps in anticipation of reelection campaign?

[Three panelists chime in at once.]

Luthra: Julie, you forgot …

Sanger-Katz: I would say …

Knight: And I think he did … Go, Margot!

Rovner: One at a time! [laughing all around] Margot, you go first.

Sanger-Katz: I would say so. And I would also just point out that the Medicare policies in the bill were previewed by the White House a couple of days before the budget release, and they were, like, the main thing. This is what they were leading with. The president had an op-ed in The New York Times describing his Medicare policies, and they put out a fact sheet with a lot of the Medicare policies. And I think it really reflects this notion that improving the solvency of Medicare and also committing to not really cutting the core services of Medicare, that this is a very key political message that the president cares about, that the president wants to run on, and that he thinks is a very useful contrast with what some Republicans have proposed in the past and what he imagines they might want to propose as House Republicans get ready to release their own budget, which faces some difficult constraints because Speaker [Kevin] McCarthy has promised certain members that the budget that they will pass will be a balanced budget. And that’s quite hard to do without touching the big health care programs.

Rovner: Yeah. Republicans have not promised not to touch Medicaid, which now the president has been very careful to say, “It’s not just Medicare and Social Security. I’m not going to let you cut Medicare, the Affordable Care Act either.” All right, Victoria, you wanted to say something?

Knight: I think — it was also interesting that, I do think, the president did want to push forward some of the more progressive policies that … the progressive base care about, such as doing more negotiating of drugs; something Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has talked a lot about is the community health centers program; expanding Medicaid, home- and community-based services; … and the insulin price cap — things that I think the progressive base cares about as well. So I feel like, as you’re saying, that interest groups, but also the different bases and also the groups that care about reproductive health care, they want him to do something after Roe v. Wade. So it definitely was, like, this huge list of trying to cater to everyone.

Rovner: It’s kind of a Democratic wish list.

Sanger-Katz: At the same time, though, I think he did leave out some of the things that were part of the Build Back Better package. In the previous budgets, the president had gone even bigger on things that the progressive base wanted. And you can see a lot of things in this budget where he’s ticking those boxes, as you say. And I think a lot of policies that he has proposed in the past that he wasn’t able to get through the last Congress — but not all. It does seem like this budget is a little more focused on being able to reduce the deficit a little bit less on this very expansive notion of a robust federal government that is spending money to improve people’s lives in quite as many ways as the message that he has been proposing in his previous budgets. You can see, again, I think this is a pivot towards campaign mode, towards his assessment of the current political moment, growing concerns about the deficit and about inflation.

Rovner: But also, as you mentioned, Margot, they put out the Medicare part of this in advance, mainly because I feel like the Medicare part of the budget is not so much a part of, you know, the statement of the budget as it is a negotiating position for this whole fight we’re going to have over the debt ceiling in a couple of months, where the Republicans are going to want to demand cuts to programs basically in exchange for not letting the U.S. default on its debts. And what the president has managed to do here is say, “We’re going to lower the price of prescription drugs more, we’re going to tax the rich more. And those two things are going to a) reduce the deficit some and b) shore up the Medicare trust fund. So you can’t accuse me of not dealing with the impending problem of Medicare.” How much of a box does that actually put Republicans in when we start to get to these negotiations?

Sanger-Katz: I don’t know how much of a box it really puts them in for a couple of reasons. One is that some of what he’s proposing is really kind of an accounting gimmick. He’s taking money that is already flowing into the federal budget, that is already part of the dollars and cents of our deficit, and he’s just redirecting them from the general fund into the Medicare trust fund. So it is true that these proposals would extend the solvency of the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, which is projected to run into some financial trouble in the coming decade. But it is not true that, like, all of the things that he’s proposing are actually new money. Some of it just comes out of other parts of the budget. It doesn’t change the deficit.

Rovner: So I will point out that that is a time honored way of extending the solvency of trusts.

Sanger-Katz: Oh, sure. I’m not saying that Biden is alone in doing that. But I just think there’s kind of three things he’s doing in this proposal. One of them is not deficit reduction. It’s just kind of moving money around. One is this drug price reduction proposal where he’s trying to get more savings by going more aggressively after more drugs. I think that is a place where he can put Republicans in a box a little bit. They’ve come out in opposition to the drug price negotiation provisions that were part of the Inflation Reduction Act that they passed last year. But those policies are super popular. The public really supports them. They feel like the pharmaceutical companies make too much money. They think that Medicare should be able to negotiate. So I think that’s a very politically shrewd decision that I think does demand potentially a response from Republicans as a possibility for deficit reduction. But then the third thing that he did is he really just raised taxes. You know, these are taxes on the rich; as Biden has been promising all along, he’s not going to raise taxes for people earning under $400,000 a year. So they’ve increased these payroll taxes, they’ve increased some investment taxes. There was kind of a loophole, a category of businesses that were not subject to that tax in the past. And, you know, I think those are basically nonstarters with Republicans. And when Republicans talk about deficit reduction, they often are very, very focused on cutting spending that the federal government does. They are much less interested in increasing taxes. And I do think that the fact that Biden led with this proposal, that he’s so comfortable talking about raising taxes as a core part of his platform, is a sign that the politics of tax cuts have changed a little bit, that that is … if you’re just taxing the rich, it seems like the public will accept that. Democrats seem actually excited about that in certain cases. But I still think tax increases are a hard political row to hoe. I think that it is not something that probably appeals to many Republican politicians. And I also think it’s probably not something that appeals to many Republican voters, either. So I don’t know that it really puts Republicans in a box in a meaningful way because they don’t feel any tension where their supporters will want them to do this thing.

Rovner: Obviously, this is a big fight yet to come. Victoria, you wanted to say something.

Knight: Yeah. I just want to add one thing. We did have, like, the first indicator: The House Freedom Caucus had a press conference this morning, and they didn’t give a lot of details, but they did say they want to restore Clinton-era work requirements for welfare programs. So they didn’t specify Medicaid, but it seems pretty likely that’s probably what they’re talking about. My colleagues and I did talk to some Republicans last week that were indicating they did want work requirements for Medicaid. So I think that seems like the very first. There’s going to be three different groups within the House Republican caucus that are going to release budgets: the Budget Committee, the House Freedom Caucus, the Republican Study Committee. So I think we are going to start seeing the outlines of what they want to do very soon. But that was kind of the first one coming out this morning, so …

Rovner: Yes, underscoring the fact that the Republicans don’t agree on what they want to do …

Knight: No.

Rovner: … which is why we haven’t seen their budget yet.

Knight: Exactly.

Rovner: Although I will point out President Biden’s budget was a month late, too.

Sanger-Katz: Can I just say one thing about the Republican budget? Because I actually spent a lot of time looking at various budget proposals and trying to examine this goal that the Republicans have of balancing the budget. Just like: How hard is it to balance the budget? And it turns out that it’s extremely hard. It’s sort of hard in a normal year. But in this post-covid era, when spending has been so elevated for so long, balancing the budget within a decade is just really, really, really hard. If you do it without raising taxes, which Republicans say they don’t want to raise taxes; if you do it without cutting defense spending, which Republicans say they don’t want to cut defense spending; if you do it without cutting Medicare or Social Security, which recently McCarthy has said he does not want to do — you end up just … this is just the basic math … having to cut everything else by 70%. That’s 7-0%. That is not the kind of cut that you can achieve even by imposing a work requirement on Medicaid, a work requirement on food stamps, and other kinds of policies that Republicans have proposed in the past. That is like deeply, deeply reducing the role of the federal government, you know, cutting Medicaid in more than half. Larry Levitt [KFF’s executive vice president for health policy] pointed out earlier this week reducing Medicaid spending by 70% probably means 50 million fewer people would have Medicaid coverage. And that’s just Medicaid. You’re talking about basically everything that the government does — environmental protection, law enforcement, military pensions, just about any program that you can think about in the government that’s not Medicare, Social Security, or direct defense spending. Seventy percent cut is quite hard to do. And so I am very curious to see what these budgets look like. I can tell you, having looked at some of the previous Republican proposals, that those all relied on some reductions to Medicare and Social Security because those programs represent such a large percentage of federal spending that if you don’t cut those at all, there’s just not a lot of dollars left. And in my reporting on this question, it does seem like one thing that the Republican Budget Committee is very likely to do is to use very aggressive assumptions about the economic growth that their policies will unleash. And so the idea is that if the economy grows by so much, then tax revenue, what increase all by itself, because people will be earning more money, and so that will enable them to balance the budget in 10 years without having to actually reduce the deficit by as much as independent scorekeepers like the Congressional Budget Office think would be necessary.

Rovner: Although I would point out that every time we’ve had one of these big tax cuts that Republicans say it’s going to grow the economy enough to pay for it, it has not grown the economy enough to pay for it.

Sanger-Katz: Indeed! You know, cutting everything that the government does by 70% probably actually would have a negative impact on the economy. People would be losing money. They would be losing their government jobs. These would be very large economic impacts that probably most economists do not think would lead to economic growth.

Rovner: Yeah, well, we will see. I will put, Margot, the nice story you did with your colleagues demonstrating all of this in chart form in the show notes. OK. Let us turn to abortion. We will start with Walgreens, poor Walgreens, caught in the maw of the abortion wars. In January, the FDA said that brick-and-mortar pharmacies for the first time could start dispensing the abortion pill, mifepristone, whose distribution had been tightly regulated since it was first approved more than 20 years ago. Almost immediately, both CVS and Walgreens, the country’s largest and second-largest pharmacy chains, announced they would apply for FDA certification to distribute the pills in states where abortion is still legal. Then, last month, 20 Republican state attorneys general, including at least four in states where abortion is still legal, warned CVS and Walgreens that if they send the pills by mail, they could be in violation of the 1873 Comstock Act, which we have talked about here before, which prohibited the mailing of items considered, air quotes, “obscene,” which at the time included information about birth control. Cut to last week when Walgreens appeared to cave to the pressure and the threat of legal action, saying it would not sell the pill in states where it’s illegal, not actually naming those states. Then, after a huge backlash, it tried to walk back its position a little, mostly leaving lots of questions. Shefali, what is your take on what Walgreens is and isn’t going to do now vis-a-vis mifepristone? They’ve kind of said both things.

Luthra: I think there’s a lot of layers here, but I want to go back to January for a moment, when we got that news from Walgreens and CVS so quickly that they would participate in providing mifepristone. Frankly, a lot of these folks that I spoke to were very surprised that [the pharmacies] reacted so quickly because carrying mifepristone in stock opens you up to really intense harassment, boycotts, protests from the anti-abortion movement. And we did see right away many of the premier anti-abortion movements calling for boycotts of Walgreens and CVS, for protests, etc. They have been organizing protests outside pharmacies right now. And there has been pressure from the beginning from governors like [Florida] Gov. Ron DeSantis instructing pharmacies not to stock the press down. The fact that Walgreens ultimately has caved in these states with hostile governments wasn’t surprising. If anything, it was surprising that it took quite so long. I am incredibly curious to see what happens with CVS and Rite Aid, the other two pharmacies that are now getting caught in the crosshairs, facing really intense pressure from lawmakers and politicians who support abortion access and also those who don’t. We saw in New York this week, the governor and the attorney general called on pharmacies to continue carrying mifepristone. Frankly, I’m skeptical that that really matters because there is no reason not to carry mifepristone in New York, a state where the government is very friendly to abortion.

Rovner: And we should point out, because this is my biggest frustration: Nobody’s actually doing it yet because nobody’s gotten certified yet.

Luthra: Correct.

Rovner: They’re not — all these headlines that said, “Walgreens is going to stop doing this.” It’s like, no, they’re going to not start doing this. Sorry.

Luthra: And we have no idea when they will get certified how long it would take. We have no idea, frankly, if mifepristone will still be able to be distributed in the country at that point, because we are still waiting on the ruling from this judge in Texas. We simply have so many open questions. And at this point, this really is more of an avenue for people to make statements about how they feel about abortion access, than it is actually affecting people’s ability to get care. The other statement grandstanding that I have been really struck by is what we’ve seen from the California governor, Gavin Newsom, who really does love to talk a lot about his pro-abortion rights bona fides, even if those statements don’t translate much into actual impact or policy. And what we saw this week was his promise that California wouldn’t do business with Walgreens if they wouldn’t stock mifepristone.

Rovner: And this is not just an idle threat in California, right? There’s a huge contract that he now says he’s not going to renew.

Luthra: So there is a contract. But friend of the podcast and former KHNer Sydney Lumpkin found the contract that Newsom was referring to. You would think it would be a significant amount of money, given how much attention it has gotten. It is a $54 million contract over five years. When you look at the overall market cap of Walgreens, a $30 billion company, it’s not clear exactly how meaningful that actually is compared to the pressure they are facing from lawsuits and the very powerful anti-abortion movement.

Rovner: So, and what … I mean, you referred to this, but what are we thinking that CVS and Rite Aid are going to do — having seen Walgreens literally put through the wringer here on this issue?

Luthra: I think that’s a really good question. I — I mean, coming into this week — had assumed that they would follow the path of Walgreens and do the exact same thing, right? Stock mifepristone, provide it with a doctor’s prescription in states where they are protected and face no legal risks, but perhaps not do so in those states where a) mifepristone is banned, as they have said they would not do. And also in states where, like Kansas, for instance, abortion is legal, but you have a very anti-abortion attorney general. It is quite interesting that they have not said either way what they will do beyond just, well we won’t do it in states where it’s illegal.

Rovner: Yeah, if I was advising CVS at this point, I would tell them to not say a word to anybody until some of this shakes out.

Luthra: Exactly.

Rovner: All right. Well, let us move on to Texas, where there is always abortion news. As Shefali mentioned, we have not had the decision yet on that abortion pill case out of Amarillo, but both sides are still going at it on other issues. Remember all those stories we’ve been chronicling about women with wanted pregnancies gone wrong who couldn’t get medical care until they were literally at death’s door or they went to another state? Well, five of them are suing the state of Texas, saying they should have been allowed to terminate their pregnancies under existing exceptions to the abortion bans, except that doctors and hospitals have been unwilling to risk giant fines and even jail time. The five women — some of whom are still pregnant, some of whom are not — want the state, whose officials continue to claim that these women were eligible for abortions in Texas if their lives were truly at risk, they want the state to clarify those exceptions even more. Is there any chance this happens? They’re not asking for the bans to be lifted. I mean, this is a kind of a unique lawsuit that we’ve not seen before because we’ve not seen that many women in this situation before.

Luthra: I think this is a pretty smart approach. I wouldn’t be surprised if it has better odds of success than, as you mentioned, a request to fully overturn Texas’ abortion bans because the exceptions are really unclear. Doctors do not feel safe talking about abortion, even in cases where it is likely that it would be very beneficial for the pregnant person, for a fetus that has really minimal chance of survival upon birth. One thing that Nancy Northup, the head of CRR [the Center for Reproductive Rights], said to me when I asked her is, depending on how this case goes, it is not at all unlikely that we see similar lawsuits filed in other states with abortion bans with similarly vague “life of the parent” exceptions that are, in reality, impossible to enforce. I think this is going to be the beginning of a very robust series of legal challenges to state abortion bans. And we’ll see better success for abortion rights lawyers in some states than in others — really depending on the makeup of these different states’ supreme courts.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, it’s funny because over the years I’ve heard obviously lots of warning about this possibility, both from the Center for Reproductive Rights, which, as you say, is pushing this case, and other groups. But nobody could sue because nobody had standing, because it hadn’t happened. It was all theoretical. Well, now it’s happened and we have people to whom it is not theoretical, who are able to go to court and say, hey, this happened to us and it violated our rights and you need to do something about it.

Luthra: And I do want to add just one thing. I mean, it’s — I think we can’t understate just what these people have been through, the women who are suing Texas. I was just really struck by one woman who flew from Texas to Colorado for an abortion that she couldn’t get in state, paid extra for a seat by the airplane in case she went into labor on the flight, and said that she still has PTSD to this day from having to travel while afraid that she might go into labor and could die from it. Like, what these people are going through right now is just … it’s really difficult for us to imagine. And I think we’re just going to hear so many more stories that are really troubling about people whose lives have been so deeply put at risk, and they’re unable to get the care their doctors want to provide.

Rovner: Right. And I say for the 11th time, these are not women who got pregnant by accident and don’t wish to be pregnant. Many of these are women who’ve been through infertility treatment and were desperately anxious to be pregnant, were thrilled when they got pregnant, but whose pregnancy took a bad turn either for the fetus or, in some cases, one of the fetuses of twins, or in some cases the pregnant person themselves. Well, meanwhile, the Texas Republican legislature has been busy proposing even more abortion restrictions. Last week, we talked about a bill that would ban websites that include information about how to get abortion pills and punish internet providers who don’t block those sites. This week, we have a bill giving state officials the upper hand in prosecuting abortion cases in parts of the state where local Democratic prosecutors have suggested they don’t plan to zealously pursue such cases. Another bill would create a special prosecutor whose job would be, among other things, to pursue violations of the state’s abortion bans. Why is Texas such a hotbed of this?

Luthra: It’s always Texas. Texas is the biggest state in the country to have banned abortion, right? Most of the people who are traveling out of state — well, maybe not most, but the plurality — are Texans, because just so many people live there. And if we think about it, Roe v. Wade, as a case, it came from Texas. SB 8, the first law that allowed a state to circumvent Roe and ban abortions [at] anything after six weeks, that was a Texas law. This is a place where lawmakers really believe that they can be a fertile testing ground for the future of abortion restrictions. Between them and Missouri, I think, that is where we will see the bulk of innovative new ways to further restrict access.

Rovner: Well, speaking of big states that are banning or thinking about banning abortion, you wrote about Florida this week, which already has a ban on abortions after 15 weeks [and is] now considering a ban after six weeks. Florida is kind of a pivotal state in all this, right?

Luthra: Florida, third-biggest state in the country. And if we look at the map of the U.S. South and particularly the Southeast, Florida is just critical. Between Florida and North Carolina, that is where people across the region are going for abortions. And Florida has more than 60 clinics compared to, you know, around a dozen in North Carolina. If abortion there is banned after six weeks, there will be thousands of people who are displaced. They will probably have to go to North Carolina, while abortion is legal there, to Virginia and then to Illinois. And that is just really too far for so many people to travel. There just aren’t realistic options once you take Florida off the map.

Rovner: Well, finally, a bill has been introduced in the South Carolina legislature that could potentially subject patients who get abortions to the death penalty. Now, I am old enough to remember last year, when anti-abortion groups insisted they didn’t want to punish women who had abortions, just those who provide or facilitate them. I guess that’s not the case anymore.

Luthra: And I think we need to see where this bill goes. It is not the only state, either, where we are seeing legislation proposed that would treat abortion as murder or as homicide. There was a bill in Louisiana just last summer that failed on that front. But we have seen bills introduced in Tennessee, in Georgia, in so many others that I cannot remember now. But it’s a long list. I think what’s interesting is, so far, none of these bills have actually moved forward. And it’s still obviously early in the session. But what I’m curious about is, is this chipping away at the resistance toward these kinds of really strict abortion bans? And is this the first step in a multiyear effort to redirect who is punished for getting an abortion to switch from the doctors, the health care providers, to the pregnant people themselves, which has always been sort of this Rubicon the movement has been afraid to cross.

Rovner: Yeah, I remember in 2016 Chris Matthews was interviewing then-candidate Donald Trump and sort of got Donald Trump to say, you know, yes, the woman should be punished. And the anti-abortion movement came at him, like, no, no, no, that’s not what we say. That’s not what we want. And now it’s, you know, seven, eight years later and that’s not necessarily what people are saying. So, we will see how that goes. OK. That’s the news for this week. Now, we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Harris Meyer and then we’ll come back and do her extra credits.

We are pleased to welcome to the podcast Harris Meyer, who reported and wrote the last two KHN-NPR “Bill of the Month” stories, which are kind of related. Harris, welcome to “What the Health?”

Harris Meyer: Thanks very much, Julie.

Rovner: So, both of these bills have to do with something very common and very treacherous to your financial health: having a baby. Let’s start with baby No. 1, a now-3-year-old named Joey Trumble. Where is she from? Why was she in the hospital for 36 days?

Meyer: Joey was born prematurely in December 2019. Her mother, Brenna Kearney, is a writer in Chicago, and she was diagnosed with preeclampsia, and her doctors ordered her hospitalized at Northwestern. And then she developed a worse form of preeclampsia called HELLP syndrome. But anyway, the baby was born healthy but premature. And the baby, Joey, was treated at Northwestern Prentice, but without the knowledge of the parents the doctors who were treating her came over from next door from Lurie Children’s, and her hospital, Northwestern, was in network for her health plan. But Lurie Children’s doctors were out of network. They did not know that. So after her baby was sent home — it had about a month, 36 days, of hospitalization — the family got a bill of about $12,000, which was unexpected.

Rovner: That’s right. And we should point out that the baby was covered, right, under the mother’s health insurance.

Meyer: Correct.

Rovner: And yet they still got a bill for $12,000.

Meyer: That’s right. The hospitalization was covered. And, to their surprise, the doctors, the neonatologist from Lurie who treated the baby, were not covered in network. And so Brenna spent the next year contesting these charges. And they were never told that the doctors were out of the network. But she had found out that there was a 2011 Illinois law, which was in effect, which prohibited this kind of out-of-network billing for neonatology services.

Rovner: That’s right. And we should point out that this was before the federal No Surprises Act took effect, because this was late 2019.

Meyer: Correct.

Rovner: But there was a state law that should have applied.

Meyer: There was a state law. Illinois was a pioneer in this. So she cited that law to Blue Cross Blue Shield Illinois and to Lurie Children’s, and they said they knew nothing about it. So the bill was sent to collections about a year later, and she was able to get Blue Cross, finally, and, a year after the birth, to cover the Lurie doctor charges fully. However, in December, three years after she gave birth, she finds out she’s being billed again, after she thought the whole ordeal was over — many years after. And she finds out that Blue Cross of Illinois had taken the money back and now Lurie was coming after her and her husband again for the out-of-network charges. And that’s when she came to Kaiser Health News, and I made calls to Lurie, to Blue Cross of Illinois, and to Northwestern. And after my calls, Lurie agreed to drop the charges. But now a state senator, the Illinois Department of Insurance, and the Illinois attorney general are looking into this to see if there was a long pattern of violations by Lurie of this 2011 state law. And Brenna actually has been contacted now by three other women who experienced similar out-of-network bills from Lurie. So we’ll see what happens with that.

Rovner: So sort of a happy ending to that one. Let’s move to baby No. 2, or, more accurately, his mother. Who is she and what happened to her?

Meyer: OK. This was last June. Danielle Laskey is a school nurse, an RN, in Seattle. She was on vacation with the family. And at 26 weeks pregnant she felt that her water broke. Her doctors in Seattle ordered her to come back and said, you’d better come in. And her doctors were at Swedish Maternal & Fetal Specialty Center in Seattle, which was in network for her Blue Shield health plan. And when she got there, they said, yes, your water broke. You were at risk for the same complication from your first pregnancy three years ago. We want you to go to Swedish Medical Center across the street immediately, and we want you to stay there until you give birth, and we’ll monitor you. So she was in the hospital for seven weeks until she gave birth in August of last year.

Rovner: Oh, so just for context, Swedish is one of the big hospitals in Seattle, right?

Meyer: Yes, absolutely. And it’s one of the specialty facilities for this particular uncommon complication, which is called placenta accreta. Anyway, she was there for seven weeks. And again, she and her husband were not told that the hospital was out of network. But it turns out that Swedish, even though her doctors were — her Swedish doctors were in network for her health plan, it turns out that Swedish Medical Center was out of network, and she found out. Then the baby was born. The baby was in the hospital, the baby boy, for about a month. And then, meanwhile, after the baby was born, she experienced symptoms again, and she was rehospitalized for a day to have this placenta condition treated. Both those hospitalizations — you know, she and her husband, who’s a psychiatrist, thought they were emergencies. The doctors regarded them as emergencies. But yet afterward, the Regence Blue Shield and Swedish decided they were not emergencies. And so, guess what? The family was hit with over $100,000 in out-of-network bills for the two Swedish hospitalizations.

Rovner: And this was after the federal law took effect, right? This was last year.

Meyer: The federal law and a Washington state law were both in effect at that point, which say that you cannot apply out-of-network charges in an emergency situation. So, at first, Blue Shield said that it was not an emergency and it didn’t come under the law. And Swedish Medical Center was going to take the family to collections. The family appealed to Regence Blue Shield. Regence in January granted the appeal for the first hospitalization, erasing $100,000 or so of the charges. But the second hospitalization, $15,000 bill, was still in effect. And then they contacted Kaiser Health News. I contacted Regence Blue Shield and Swedish, and then the charges were dropped for the second hospitalization.

Rovner: Amazing how that happens.

Meyer: Yeah, well, it’s not a solution. So the twist on this one is that Regence Blue Shield said we decided it was an emergency and that it wasn’t proper that the doctors were in network but the hospital wasn’t, so we’re going to consider this an in network and erase the charges. But they said Regence Blue Shield had a contract with Swedish, which made Swedish a quote-unquote “participating provider”; therefore, the federal and state laws do not apply to that situation, and the hospital was allowed to charge the out-of-network charge. We’re going to erase it for this case, but the law does not apply to that situation.

Rovner: I confess, if I’m in a hospital and they say they’re a participating provider, I’m going to assume that means they’re in network. And in this case, it doesn’t, right?

Meyer: Right. It’s a very strange twist that my experts had never encountered before. I took the issue to the federal agency CMS, which administers the No Surprises Act, and they said that they’re going to look into this and HHS, Treasury Department, and Department of Labor are all going to have to look into this to see if this could be fixed through an agency guidance or whether this would require a congressional action to fix this apparent loophole in the law.

Rovner: Creativity. So what’s the takeaway here for both women and particularly for pregnant women who know at some point they’re likely to be in the hospital? You can’t ask every single person who touches you whether they’re in your network. And isn’t that what state and the federal law are supposed to guard against? These are the exact things that we assumed would be taken care of. Right?

Meyer: Right. Well, first of all, the family, the patient, and their loved ones need to ask the hospital and the insurer to tell them their rights under the No Surprises Act and make sure that both the insurer and the provider are following the letter of those federal and state laws. Second, if they do get, God forbid, a out-of-network bill, they need to immediately appeal that to the insurance company, and there’s a two-level appeal process. The second level, they get an independent review. And then, at the same time, they need to file a report or a complaint with the state attorney general’s office, the state department of insurance, and maybe even contact state legislators. There also are private agencies or private companies with nurses and lawyers, etc., that will help families, for a fee, address issues like this. Hopefully it shouldn’t require that, but sometimes it may. And of course, then there’s Kaiser Health News. You can file your “Bill of the Month” complaint through the portal, which we can’t deal with hundreds of thousands of cases, obviously.

Rovner: But we can help at least a few. And Harris Meyer, you helped two. So thank you very much. And thank you for joining us.

Meyer: Thank you, Julie.

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

Knight: My extra credit is called “They Could Lose the House — to Medicaid,” by Tony Leys, and it is published on NPR but is a KHN story. It’s about a family in Iowa who found out, after the mother in the family died, that they could lose their house because she was getting services through Medicaid. She had dementia, and so she needed really intensive at-home family care. Then after she died, they got a letter from the Iowa Department of Human Services — just a month after she died, so not long after — saying that the state was trying to recoup the money that they had spent on her care. So it was almost over $200,000 that they were asking for. And what was really upsetting is this family home was going to be the inheritance for the daughter. And so now they’re kind of like, what are we going to do? Thankfully, they don’t have to do anything with the house until something happens to the father. So it’s not gone immediately. But this is basically something that some states do. It’s called estate recovery programs. And if people use Medicaid in those states, the states have the ability to come back later … whether it’s, like, a house or they can ask for funds that these families used for Medicaid. So it’s really illuminating. I had no idea this was something that happened, and it varies by state to state. But in Iowa, this is something that they kind of pursue very aggressively.

Rovner: I remember when Congress made this a possibility, I think it was back in 1995. It’s been around, the possibility of states recouping Medicaid money for a long time. But as you point out, not all states do it. And it’s usually a surprise when states do do it. People still really don’t know about it. Shefali.

Luthra: So my story is from my 19th colleague, Jennifer Gerson. The headline is “Language for Treating Childhood Obesity Carries Its Own Health Risks to Kids, Experts Say.” And what Jen did, which I think is really smart and important, is she looked at the new clinical guidelines we got from the American Academy of Pediatrics. And those were meant to improve how we evaluate and treat obesity in children. And what she gets into is that there are a lot of children’s health experts, especially mental health experts, who are deeply concerned about what the impacts of these new guidelines could be, how they might exacerbate weight stigma, and how the long-term ramifications of some of the treatment guidelines could actually have worse outcomes for young people as a result, by building on weight stigma, which could lead to different kinds of unhealthy behaviors, could lead to mental health harms that could have much longer term repercussions, possibly more, in fact, dangerous than the actual problems that these guidelines are trying to treat. And one thing that Jen notes I think is really important is that the implications of weight stigma, in particular, are especially harmful for young girls who, as we know, are already facing so many mental health crises in general right now. I thought this was a really important look at a potentially really troubling unintended consequence, and I’m really glad Jen wrote about it.

Rovner: Yeah, I had no idea. It was a very counterintuitive but really interesting piece. Margot, what do you have this week?

Sanger-Katz: I wanted to suggest an article in ProPublica called “How Obamacare Enabled a Multibillion-Dollar Christian Health Care Cash Grab,” by J. David McSwane and Ryan Gabrielson which is just this wonderful historic dive into how the Affordable Care Act ended up allowing something called Christian health ministries to provide an alternative to health insurance. As we all know, the Affordable Care Act basically said, if you’re going to offer health insurance, it has to meet certain minimum guidelines in terms of what it covers and how it works. And these Christian health sharing ministries are just this huge, huge exception where basically it’s just, you know, groups of religiously affiliated people can get together and just pay for each other’s health care or not, depending on what they want to do. There has been a lot of reporting over the years about the degree to which these plans are kind of scammy or poorly run or are not paying for needed health care for their members who think that they are an alternative to insurance. And so this piece is just fun because it looked at the lobbying that generated this strange policy.

Rovner: Yeah. You know, I remember when they got the Christian sharing ministries exception into the ACA and not really knowing where it came from. Well, this story explains exactly where it came from. So it is quite an eye-popping read. Mine is from my KHN colleague Sarah Varney, and it’s called “Girls in Texas Could Get Birth Control at Federal Clinics, Until a Christian Father Objected. Now, for decades, underage girls have been able to get contraception from federally funded Title X family planning clinics without parental permission. An effort by the Reagan administration in the early 1980s, dubbed the “Squeal Rule,” which would have required that parents be notified after the fact, was struck down in federal court and the Reagan administration did not appeal it. And no, I was not there to cover that at that time. I did look it up. A couple of months ago, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk — yes, that Judge Kacsmaryk, who will any day now rule on whether the FDA approval of the abortion pill should be revoked — ruled in favor of a father in Texas, not a father whose daughters did or said they wanted to obtain contraception from a Title X clinic. But the father complained that the very possibility that his daughters could get birth control without his consent rendered that portion of the law — which has been in effect since Title X, was signed by Richard Nixon in 1970 — unconstitutional. And of course, the judge agreed with him. So for now, the ruling only applies in Texas. But lest you think they’re not coming for your birth control, think again.

OK. That is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review — that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth — all one word — @kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m @jrovner. Shefali?

Luthra: I’m @shefalil

Rovner: Victoria.

Knight: @victoriaregisk

Rovner: Margot.

Sanger-Katz: @sangerkatz

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Less than two years after opening a state-of-the-art $26 million hospital in Leadville, Colorado, St. Vincent Health nearly ran out of money.

Hospital officials said in early December that without a cash infusion they would be unable to pay their bills or meet payroll by the end of the week.

The eight-bed rural hospital had turned a $2.2 million profit in 2021, but the windfall was largely a mirage. Pandemic relief payments masked problems in the way the hospital billed for services and collected payments.

In 2022, St. Vincent lost nearly $2.3 million. It was at risk of closing and leaving the 7,400 residents of Lake County without a hospital or immediate emergency care. A $480,000 bailout from the county and an advance of more than $1 million from the state kept the doors open and the lights on.

Since 2010, 145 rural hospitals across the U.S. have closed, according to the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina. But covid-19 relief measures slowed that trend. Only 10 rural hospitals shut down in 2021 and 2022 combined, after a record 19 in 2020. Two rural hospitals have closed already this year.

Now that those covid funds are gone, many challenges that threatened rural hospitals before the pandemic have resurfaced. Industry analysts warn that rural facilities, like St. Vincent Health, are once again on shaky ground.

Jeffrey Johnson, a partner with the consulting firm Wipfli, said he has been warning hospital boards during audits not to overestimate their financial position coming out of the pandemic.

He said the influx of cash aid gave rural hospital operators a “false sense of reality.”

No rural hospitals have closed in Colorado in the past decade, but 16 are operating in the red, according to Michelle Mills, CEO of the nonprofit Colorado Rural Health Center, the State Office of Rural Health. Last year, Delta County voters saved a rural hospital owned by Delta Health by passing a sales tax ballot measure to help support the facility. And state legislators are fast-tracking a $5 million payment to stabilize Denver Health, an urban safety-net hospital.

John Gardner took over as interim CEO of St. Vincent after the previous CEO resigned last year. He said the hospital’s cash crunch stemmed from decisions to spend covid funds on equipment instead of operating costs.

St. Vincent is classified by Medicare as a critical access hospital, so the federal program reimburses it based on its costs. Medicare advanced payments to hospitals in 2020, but then recouped the money by reducing payments in 2022. St. Vincent had to repay $1.2 million at the same time the hospital faced higher spending, a growing accounts-payable obligation, and falling revenue. The hospital, Gardner said, had mismanaged its billing process, hadn’t updated its prices since 2018, and failed to credential new clinicians with insurance plans.

Meanwhile, the hospital began adding services, including behavioral health, home health and hospice, and genetic testing, which came with high startup costs and additional employees.

“Some businesses the hospital was looking at getting into were beyond the normal menu of critical access hospitals,” Gardner said. “I think they lost their focus. There were just some bad decisions made.”

Once the hospital’s upside-down finances became clear, those services were dropped, and the hospital reduced staffing from 145 employees to 98.

Additionally, St. Vincent had purchased an accounting system designed for hospitals but had trouble getting it to work.

The accounting problems meant the hospital was late completing its 2021 audit and hadn’t provided its board with monthly financial updates. Gardner said the hospital believes it may have underreported its costs to Medicare, and so it is updating its reports in hopes of securing additional revenue.

The hospital also ran into difficulty with equipment it purchased to perform colonoscopies. St. Vincent is believed to be the highest-elevation hospital in the U.S., at more than 10,150 feet, and the equipment used to verify that the scopes weren’t leaking did not work at that altitude.

“We’re peeling the onion, trying to find out what are the things that went wrong and then fixing them, so it’s hopefully a ship that’s running fairly smoothly,” Gardner said.

Soon Gardner will hand off operations to a management company charged with getting the hospital back on track and hiring new leadership. But officials expect it could take two to three years to get the hospital on solid ground.

Some of those challenges are unique to St. Vincent, but many are not. According to the Chartis Center for Rural Health, a consulting and research firm, the average rural hospital operates with a razor-thin 1.8% margin, leaving little room for error.

Rural hospitals operating in states that have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, as Colorado did, average a 2.6% margin, but rural hospitals in the 12 non-expansion states have a margin of minus 0.5%.

Chartis calculated that 43% of rural hospitals are operating in the red, down slightly from 45% last year. Michael Topchik, who heads the Chartis Center for Rural Health, said the rate was only 33% 10 years ago.

A hospital should be able to sustain operations with the income from patient care, he said. Additional payments — such as provider relief funds, revenues from tax levies, or other state or federal funds — should be set aside for the capital expenditures needed to keep hospitals up to date.

“That’s not what we see,” Topchik said, adding that hospitals use that supplemental income to pay salaries and keep the lights on.

Bob Morasko, CEO of Heart of the Rockies Regional Medical Center in Salida, said a change in the way Colorado’s Medicaid program pays hospitals has hurt rural facilities.

Several years ago, the program shifted from a cost-based approach, similar to Medicare’s, to one that pays per patient visit. He said a rural hospital has to staff its ER every night with at least a doctor, a nurse, and X-ray and laboratory technicians.

“If you’re paid on an encounter and you have very low volumes, you can’t cover your costs,” he said. “Some nights, you might get only one or two patients.”

Hospitals also struggle to recruit staff to rural areas and often have to pay higher salaries than they can afford. When they can’t recruit, they must pay even higher wages for temporary travel nurses or doctors. And the shift to an encounter-based system, Morasko said, also complicated coding for billing , leading to difficulties in hiring competent billing staff.

On top of that, inflation has meant hospitals pay more for goods and services, said Mills, from the state’s rural health center.

“Critical access hospitals and rural health clinics were established to provide care, not to be a moneymaker in the community,” she said.

Even if rural hospitals manage to stay open, their financial weakness can affect patients in other ways. Chartis found the number of rural hospitals eliminating obstetrics rose from 198 in 2019 to 217 last year, and the number no longer offering chemotherapy grew from 311 to 353.

“These were two we were able to track with large data sets, but it’s across the board,” Topchik said. “You don’t have to close to be weak.”

Back in Leadville, Gardner said financial lifelines thrown to the hospital have stabilized its financial situation for now, and he doesn’t anticipate needing to ask the county or state for more money.

“It gives us the cushion that we need to fix all the other things,” he said. “It’s not perfect, but I see light at the end of the tunnel.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Valley County, with a population of just over 7,500, passed levies to support the nursing home amounting to an estimated $300,000 a year for three years, starting this year. And when the Hi-Line Retirement Center in neighboring Phillips County shut down last year as the covid-19 pandemic brought more stressors to the nursing home industry, Valley View Home took in some of its patients.

Thompson said he foresees more nursing home closures on the horizon as their financial struggles continue. But lawmakers are trying to reduce that risk through measures that would raise and set standards for the Medicaid reimbursement rates that nursing homes depend on for their operations.

A study commissioned by the last legislative session found that Medicaid providers in Montana were being reimbursed at rates much lower than the cost of care. In his two-year state budget proposal before lawmakers, Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte has proposed increases to the provider rates that fall short of the study’s recommendations.

Legislators drafting the state health department budget included rates higher than the governor’s proposal, but still not enough for nursing homes to cover the cost of providing care. Those rates are subject to change as the state budget bill goes through the months-long legislative process, though majority-Republican lawmakers so far have rejected Democratic lawmakers’ attempts for full funding.

In a separate effort to address the long-term care industry’s long-term viability, a bipartisan bill going through Montana’s legislature, Senate Bill 296, aims to revise how nursing homes and assisted living facilities are funded. The bill would direct health officials to consider inflation, cost-of-living adjustments, and the actual costs of services in setting Medicaid reimbursement rates.

SB 296, which received an initial hearing on Feb. 17, has generated conflicting opinions from experts in the long-term care field on whether it does enough to avoid nursing home closures.

Republican Sen. Becky Beard, the bill’s sponsor, said that although the bill comes too late for the nursing homes that have already closed, she sees it as shining a light on a problem that’s not going away.

“We need to stop the attrition,” Beard said.

Sebastian Martinez Hickey, a research assistant at the Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit think tank, said wages for nursing home employees had been extremely low even before the pandemic. He said the focus needs to be on raising Medicaid reimbursement rates beyond inflationary factors.

“Increasing Medicaid rates for inflation is going to have positive effects, but there’s no way that it’s going to compensate for what we’ve experienced in the last several years,” Martinez Hickey said.

Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, and North Carolina are among the states that have adopted laws or regulations to increase nursing home staff wages since the pandemic began. Michigan, North Carolina, and Ohio adopted increases or one-time bonuses.

In Maine, a 2020 study of long-term care workforce issues suggested that Medicaid rates should be high enough to support direct-care worker wages that amount to at least 125% of the minimum wage, which is $13.80 in that state. In combination with other goals outlined in the study, after a year there had been modest increases in residential care homes and beds, improved occupancy rates, and nods toward stabilization of the direct-care workforce.

Rose Hughes, executive director of the Montana Health Care Association, which lobbies on behalf of nursing homes and senior issues, said many of the problems plaguing senior care come down to reimbursement rates. There’s not enough money to hire staff, and, if there were, wages would still be too low to attract staff in a competitive marketplace, Hughes said.

“It’s trying to deal with systemic problems that exist in the system so that longer term the reimbursement system can be more stable,” Hughes said.

The governor’s office said Gianforte has been clear that Montana needs to raise its provider rates. For senior and long-term care, Gianforte’s proposed state budget would raise provider rates to 88% of the benchmark recommended by the state-commissioned study. Gianforte’s budget proposal is a starting point for lawmakers, and legislative budget writers have penciled in funding at about 90% of the benchmark rate.

“The governor continues to work with legislators and welcomes their input on his historic provider rate investment,” Gianforte spokesperson Kaitlin Price said.

Democratic Rep. Mary Caferro is sponsoring a bill to fully fund the Medicaid provider rates in accordance with the study.

“What we really, really need is our bill to pass so that it brings providers current with ongoing funding for predictability and stability so they can do the good work of caring for people,” Caferro said at a Feb. 21 press briefing.

But Thompson said that even the reimbursement rate recommended by the study — $279 per patient, per day, compared with the current $208 rate — isn’t high enough to cover Valley View Home’s expenses. He said he’s going to have to have a “heart to heart” with the facility’s board to see what can be done to keep it open if the local tax levies in combination with the new rate aren’t enough to cover the cost of operations.

David Trost, CEO of St. John’s United, an assisted-living facility for seniors in Billings, said the current reimbursement rate is so low that St. John’s uses savings, grants, fundraising revenue, and other investments to make up the difference. He said that while SB 296 looks at factors to cover operating costs, it doesn’t account for other costs, such as repairs and renovations.

“In addition to paying for existing operating costs as desired by SB 296, we also need to look at funding of capital improvements through some loan mechanism to help nursing facilities make improvements to existing environments,” Trost said.

Another component of SB 296 seeks to boost assisted-living services by generating more federal funding.

Additional money could help reduce or eliminate the waiting list for assisted-living homes, which now stands at about 175 people, Hughes said. That waiting list not only signals that some seniors aren’t getting service, but it also results in more people being sent to nursing homes when they may not need that level of care.

SB 296 would also ensure that money appropriated to nursing homes can be used only for nursing homes, and not be available for other programs within the Department of Public Health and Human Services, like dentists, hospitals, or Medicaid expansion. According to Hughes, in 2021 the nursing home budget had a remainder of $29 million, which was transferred to different programs in the Senior and Long Term Care division.

If the funding safeguard in SB 296 had been in place at that time, Hughes said, there may have been more money to sustain the nursing homes that closed last year.

Keely Larson is the KHN fellow for the UM Legislative News Service, a partnership of the University of Montana School of Journalism, the Montana Newspaper Association, and Kaiser Health News. Larson is a graduate student in environmental and natural resources journalism at the University of Montana.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Estados Unidos se estancó en las regulaciones químicas después de la década de 1970, según Bhavna Shamasunder, profesora asociada de política urbana y ambiental en el Occidental College. Y eso ha dejado un vacío regulatorio, ya que la blanda supervisión federal permite que productos potencialmente tóxicos que estarían prohibidos en Europa se vendan en las tiendas estadounidenses.

“Muchos productos en el mercado no son seguros”, dijo Shamasunder. “Es por eso que los estados están ayudando a generar una solución”.

La posible exposición a sustancias tóxicas en los cosméticos es especialmente preocupante para las mujeres de color, porque estudios muestran que las mujeres negras usan más productos para el cabello que otros grupos raciales, y que las hispanas y asiáticas han informado que usan más cosméticos en general que las mujeres negras y blancas no hispanas.

La legislación del estado de Washington es un segundo intento de aprobar la Ley de Cosméticos Libres de Tóxicos, luego que, en 2022, los legisladores aprobaran un proyecto de ley que eliminó la prohibición de ingredientes tóxicos en los cosméticos.

Este año, los legisladores tienen un contexto adicional después que un informe encargado por la Legislatura, y publicado en enero por el Departamento de Ecología del estado, encontró múltiples productos con niveles preocupantes de químicos peligrosos, incluyendo plomo y arsénico en la base CoverGirl Clean Fresh Pressed Powder de tinte oscuro.

El lápiz labial de color continuo CoverGirl y la base de maquillaje Black Radiance Pressed Powder de Markwins Beauty Brands se encuentran entre otros productos de varias marcas que contienen plomo, según el informe.

Los equipos de investigación preguntaron a mujeres hispanas, negras no hispanas y multirraciales qué productos de belleza usaban. Luego, probaron 50 cosméticos comprados en Walmart, Target y Dollar Tree, entre otras tiendas.

“Las empresas están agregando conservantes como el formaldehído a los productos cosméticos”, dijo Iris Deng, investigadora de tóxicos del Departamento de Ecología estatal. “El plomo y el arsénico son historias diferentes. Se detectan como contaminantes”.

Markwins Beauty Brands no respondió a las solicitudes de comentarios.

“Las trazas nominales de ciertos elementos a veces pueden estar presentes en las formulaciones de productos como consecuencia del origen mineral natural, según lo permitido por la ley que aplica”, dijo Miriam Mahlow, vocera de la empresa matriz de CoverGirl, Coty Inc., en un correo electrónico.

Los autores del informe de Washington dijeron que los países de la Unión Europea prohíben productos como la base CoverGirl de tinte oscuro. Esto se debe a que el arsénico y el plomo se han relacionado con el cáncer, y daño cerebral y del sistema nervioso. “No se conoce un nivel seguro de exposición al plomo”, dijo Marissa Smith, toxicóloga reguladora sénior del estado de Washington. Y el formaldehído también es carcinógeno.

“Cuando encontramos estos químicos en productos aplicados directamente a nuestros cuerpos, sabemos que las personas están expuestas”, agregó Smith. “Por lo tanto, podemos suponer que estas exposiciones están contribuyendo a los impactos en la salud”.

Aunque la mayoría del contenido de plomo de los productos era bajo, dijo Smith, las personas a menudo están expuestas durante años, lo que aumenta considerablemente el peligro.

Los hallazgos del departamento de ecología de Washington no fueron sorprendentes: otros organismos han detectado conservantes como formaldehído o, más a menudo, agentes liberadores de formaldehído como quaternium-15, DMDM hidantoína, imidazolidinil urea y diazolidinil urea en productos para alisar el cabello comercializados especialmente para las mujeres negras.

El formaldehído es uno de los productos químicos utilizados para embalsamar los cadáveres antes de los funerales.

Además de Washington, al menos 12 estados —Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Nueva Jersey, Nueva York, Carolina del Norte, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas y Vermont— están considerando leyes para restringir o exigir la divulgación de sustancias químicas tóxicas en cosméticos y otros productos de cuidado personal.

Los estados están actuando porque el gobierno federal tiene una autoridad limitada, dijo Melanie Benesh, vicepresidenta de asuntos gubernamentales del Environmental Working Group, una organización sin fines de lucro que investiga qué hay en los productos para el hogar y para el consumidor.

“La FDA ha tenido recursos limitados para intentar la prohibición de ingredientes”, agregó Benesh.

El Congreso no ha otorgado a la Agencia de Protección Ambiental (EPA) una amplia autoridad para regular estos productos, a pesar de que los contaminantes y conservantes de los cosméticos terminan en el suministro de agua.

En 2021, un hombre de California solicitó a la EPA que prohibiera los químicos tóxicos en los cosméticos bajo la Ley de Control de Sustancias Tóxicas, pero la petición fue denegada, porque los cosméticos están fuera del alcance de la jurisdicción de la ley, dijo Lynn Bergeson, abogada en Washington, D.C.

Bergeson dijo que la regulación de los productos químicos está sujeta a la Ley Federal de Alimentos, Medicamentos y Cosméticos, pero la Administración de Medicamentos y Alimentos (FDA) regula solo los aditivos de color y los productos químicos en los protectores solares porque sostienen que disminuyen el riesgo de cáncer de piel.

Minnesota, por ejemplo, llena los vacíos regulatorios al realizar pruebas de mercurio, hidroquinona y esteroides en productos para aclarar la piel. También aprobó una ley en 2013 que prohíbe el formaldehído en productos para niños, como lociones y baños de burbujas.

California ha aprobado varias leyes que regulan los ingredientes y el etiquetado de los cosméticos, incluida la Ley de Cosméticos Seguros de California, en 2005. Una ley adoptada en 2022 prohíbe las sustancias de perfluoroalquilo y polifluoroalquilo agregadas intencionalmente, conocidas como PFAS, en cosméticos y prendas de vestir a partir de 2025.

El año pasado, Colorado también aprobó una prohibición de PFAS en maquillaje y otros productos.

Pero expertos en seguridad del consumidor dijeron que los estados no deberían tener que llenar el vacío dejado por las regulaciones federales, y que un enfoque más inteligente implicaría que el gobierno federal sometiera los ingredientes de los cosméticos a un proceso de aprobación.

Mientras tanto, los estados están librando una batalla cuesta arriba, porque miles de productos químicos están disponibles para los fabricantes. Como resultado, existe una brecha entre lo que los consumidores necesitan como protección y la capacidad de acción de los reguladores, dijo Laurie Valeriano, directora ejecutiva de Toxic-Free Future, una organización sin fines de lucro que investiga y defiende la salud ambiental.

“Los sistemas federales son inadecuados porque no requieren el uso de productos químicos más seguros”, dijo Valeriano. “En cambio, permiten productos químicos peligrosos en productos para el cuidado personal, como PFAS, ftalatos o incluso formaldehído”.

Además, el sistema de evaluación de riesgos del gobierno federal tiene fallas, dijo, “porque intenta determinar cuánto riesgo de exposiciones tóxicas es aceptable”. Por el contrario, el enfoque que el estado de Washington espera legislar evaluaría los peligros y preguntaría si los productos químicos son necesarios o si existen alternativas más seguras, es decir, evitar los ingredientes tóxicos en los cosméticos en primer lugar.

Es muy parecido al enfoque adoptado por la Unión Europea (UE).

“Ponemos límites y restricciones a estos productos químicos”, dijo Mike Rasenberg, director de evaluación de peligros de la Agencia Europea de Productos Químicos en Helsinki, Finlandia.

Rasenberg dijo que debido a que la investigación muestra que el formaldehído causa cáncer nasal, la UE lo ha prohibido en productos de belleza, además del plomo y el arsénico. Los 27 países de la UE también trabajan juntos para probar la seguridad de los productos.

En Alemania se examinan anualmente más de 10,000 productos cosméticos, dijo Florian Kuhlmey, vocero de la Oficina Federal de Protección al Consumidor y Seguridad Alimentaria de ese país. Y no termina ahí. Este año, Alemania examinará alrededor de 200 muestras de dentífrico para niños en busca de metales pesados y otros elementos prohibidos en la UE para cosméticos, agregó Kuhlmey.

La legislación en Washington se acercaría a la estrategia europea para la regulación de productos químicos. Si se aprueba, daría a los minoristas que venden productos con ingredientes prohibidos hasta 2026 para vender los productos existentes.

Mientras tanto, los clientes pueden protegerse buscando productos de belleza naturales, dijo la dermatóloga del área de Atlanta, Chynna Steele Johnson.

“Muchos productos tienen agentes liberadores de formaldehído”, dijo Steele Johnson. “Pero no es algo que los clientes puedan encontrar en una etiqueta. Mi sugerencia, y esto también se aplica a los alimentos, sería, cuanto menos ingredientes, mejor”.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

King contó que el banco de alimentos está muy ocupado a principios de mes porque las personas que reciben beneficios del Programa de Asistencia Nutricional Suplementaria (SNAP) federal,  vienen a abastecerse de alimentos gratis que los ayudan a estirar su presupuesto mensual.

Ha trabajado en este banco por más de 20 años, y dijo que nunca había recibido a tantas familias. En enero, FISH entregó cajas de comida a cerca de 790 personas.

Pero King y otros gerentes de bancos de alimentos temen que la demanda aumente aún más en marzo, cuando el gobierno retire los beneficios extra que SNAP ofreció durante la pandemia. El programa, administrado por el Departamento de Agricultura, proporciona dinero mensual a personas de bajos ingresos para gastos de alimentos. Antes de 2020, esos pagos promediaban poco más de $200 y aumentaron un mínimo de $95 durante la pandemia.

Funcionarios estiman que las familias con las que King trabaja verán una disminución del 30% al 40% en los pagos de SNAP a medida que se interrumpen las asignaciones de emergencia vinculadas a la emergencia de salud pública en 32 estados, incluido Nevada.

Otros estados, como Georgia, Indiana, Montana y Dakota del Sur, ya finalizaron estas asignaciones.

Los recortes a los beneficios de SNAP perjudicarán especialmente a las personas que viven en las zonas rurales del país, dijo Andrew Cheyne, director gerente de políticas públicas de GRACE, una organización sin fines de lucro dirigida por Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, enfocada en reducir el hambre infantil.

Un mayor porcentaje de personas depende de SNAP en áreas rurales en comparación con las áreas metropolitanas. Y esas zonas ya tienen tasas más altas de inseguridad alimentaria y de pobreza.

“Tenemos tantos hogares que simplemente no van a saber que esto está sucediendo”, dijo Cheyne. “Irán al mercado y esperarán tener dinero en su cuenta, y no podrán comprar los alimentos que necesitan para alimentar a sus familias”.

Mientras golpean las consecuencias de estos recortes, administradores de bancos de alimentos en áreas rurales se encuentran en el frente de batalla, tratando de llenar estos vacíos en sus comunidades. Ellos, y expertos en políticas alimentarias, temen que no sea suficiente. Por cada dólar en productos que un banco de alimentos distribuye a una comunidad, SNAP entrega $9.

“Simplemente no se puede comparar la escala de SNAP con el sector de alimentos caritativos”, dijo Cheyne. “Simplemente no es posible compensar esa diferencia”.

Los beneficios de cada hogar se reducirán en al menos $95 por mes, y algunos hogares absorberán una reducción de hasta $250, según el Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

“Por lo que veo, no hay forma de que alguna vez compensemos por completo lo que se está perdiendo”, dijo Ellen Vollinger, directora de SNAP para el Food Research & Action Center, una organización sin fines de lucro contra el hambre, con sede en Washington, D.C.

Los recortes reducirán los pagos a los hogares que reciben asistencia a un promedio de alrededor de $6 por persona, por día, dijo Vollinger. Y agregó que $2 por comida no es suficiente para alimentar a una persona, especialmente sumando otros factores, como el aumento de la gasolina, el alquiler, y los precios de los alimentos. Añadió que algunos adultos mayores verán la caída más abrupta en los beneficios, pasando de $280 al mes a $23.

Chasity Harris, de 42 años, dijo que los $519 en beneficios que ha recibido mensualmente desde octubre marcan una gran diferencia para ella y su nieta. Cuando termine la asignación de emergencia, dijo que sabe que hará lo necesario para asegurarse de que haya comida en la mesa, pero eso no significa que será fácil.

“No se puede comer sano sin tener un presupuesto amable”, dijo Harris. “La mala comida es barata. El hecho de que pueda arreglármelas no significa que esté obteniendo todo lo que necesitamos. Estoy comprando las cosas más baratas”.

Un estudio publicado por el Urban Institute estimó que las asignaciones de emergencia de SNAP ayudaron a más de 4 millones de personas a mantenerse por encima del umbral de pobreza a fines de 2021. Las personas negras no hispanas e hispanas vieron la mayor reducción en los niveles de pobreza, según el análisis.

En Montana, los beneficios ampliados de SNAP se redujeron en el verano de 2021. Brent Weisgram, vicepresidente y director de operaciones de Montana Food Bank Network, dijo que los informes de los socios de la red mostraron un aumento del 2% en la cantidad de hogares que buscaron asistencia de bancos de alimentos de emergencia entre julio de 2021 y julio de 2022.

Weisgram dijo que las despensas de alimentos no están preparadas para absorber el impacto del recorte al programa federal de asistencia nutricional más grande, y que son estrictamente un recurso complementario.

Los bancos de alimentos de todo el país todavía están haciendo frente a la mayor demanda que comenzó en 2020, dijo Cheyne. Esa necesidad persistente de la pandemia, junto con la inflación que ha disparado los precios de los alimentos, deja a los bancos menos preparados para la demanda que resultará de los recortes a las asignaciones de emergencia de SNAP.

Si bien ahora el banco de alimentos FISH tiene suficiente carne para las familias, King dijo que le preocupa si será suficiente dentro de seis meses. En una escala del 1 al 10, su nivel de preocupación con respecto a las consecuencias de los inminentes recortes de SNAP es 9, remarcó.

Mirando el pasado reciente, sus preocupaciones son válidas.

En 2009, los beneficiarios de SNAP recibieron, en promedio, entre un 15% y un 20% más en beneficios cuando el gobierno federal estaba respondiendo a los desafíos de la Gran Recesión. Una familia de cuatro recibía $80 más al mes en beneficios. En 2013, el gobierno revirtió esto, promediando un recorte del 7% por hogar. Los efectos fueron inmediatos y a largo plazo, dijo Cheyne, incluidos picos significativos en la inseguridad alimentaria y el hambre relacionados con la pobreza que se prolongaron durante casi una década.

Esta vez, los recortes son mucho mayores que en 2013 y hay mucho menos tiempo para que los estados se preparen, lo que hace más difícil garantizar que los que reciben SNAP estén al tanto de los beneficios que están a punto de perder.

Si bien se espera que las familias e individuos recurran a otros lugares, como los bancos de alimentos, otras organizaciones de ayuda enfrentan desafíos producto de la inflación y el aumento del costo de vida.

El Banco de Alimentos del Norte de Nevada, que ayuda a suministrar bancos de alimentos, incluido FISH, en comunidades más pequeñas, ha visto una caída en las donaciones durante los últimos seis meses, dijo Jocelyn Lantrip, directora de marketing y comunicaciones del banco. El personal está “luchando” para obtener y comprar suficientes alimentos para satisfacer el aumento que se espera de la demanda, contó.

King dijo que la despensa de alimentos FISH dependerá de las donaciones porque los dólares de las subvenciones no se están estirando tanto como antes debido a la inflación. Pero harán todo lo posible para satisfacer las necesidades de su comunidad, que van mucho más allá de la asistencia alimentaria.

Las cajas de alimentos son solo una parte de los servicios que brinda FISH y otras despensas de alimentos, entre ellos: ayuda para inscribirse en SNAP y otros programas de beneficios, como vivienda y referencias a proveedores de salud mental.

A pesar del desafío por delante que enfrenta la pequeña despensa, King tiene esperanzas.

“Siento que todos los que tienen el poder de ayudar están haciendo todo lo posible para ayudarnos”, dijo. “Solo tienes que mirar tu comida y decir: ‘Está bien, ¿cuánto tiempo puedo hacer que esto dure y marcar la diferencia en la vida de alguien?'”.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The beginning of the month is busy for the food pantry, King said, because people who receive benefits from the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, come to stock up on free food that helps them stretch their monthly allotments. The food pantry, one of a few in this city of about 20,000 people, serves more families now than at any point in King’s 20 years of working there, she said. In January, FISH provided food boxes to nearly 790 people.

But King and other food bank managers fear that demand will spike further in March, when officials roll back pandemic-era increases to SNAP benefits. The program, administered by the Department of Agriculture, provides monthly stipends to people with low incomes to spend on food. Before 2020, those payments averaged a little more than $200 and were hiked by a minimum of $95 during the pandemic.

Officials estimate families King works with will see a 30% to 40% decrease in SNAP payments as emergency allotments tied to the public health emergency halt in 32 states, including Nevada. Other states, such as Georgia, Indiana, Montana, and South Dakota, have already ended the emergency allotments.

The cuts to SNAP benefits will uniquely hurt people living in rural America, said Andrew Cheyne, managing director of public policy for GRACE, a nonprofit run by the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul focused on reducing childhood hunger. A higher percentage of people depend on SNAP in rural areas compared with metro areas. And those areas already have higher rates of food insecurity and poverty.

“We have so many households who simply aren’t going to know that this is happening,” Cheyne said. “They’re going to go to the grocery store and expect to have money in their account and not be able to buy the food they need to feed their families.”

And as the fallout from those cuts hits, food pantry managers in rural areas find themselves on the front lines trying to fill gaps in their communities. They and food policy experts fear it won’t be enough. For every dollar worth of groceries a food bank distributes to a community, SNAP delivers $9.

“There’s just no comparing the scale of SNAP to the charitable food sector,” Cheyne said. “It’s simply not possible to make up that difference.”

Each household’s benefits will drop by at least $95 per month, with some households absorbing as much as a $250 reduction, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

“There’s no way, that I see, that we’re ever going to make up fully for what’s being lost,” said Ellen Vollinger, SNAP director for the Food Research & Action Center, an anti-hunger nonprofit in Washington, D.C.

The cuts will reduce payments to households that receive assistance to an average of about $6 per person, per day, Vollinger said, adding that $2 per meal isn’t enough to feed a person, especially given other factors, like rising fuel, rent, and grocery prices. Some older adults, she said, will see the most precipitous drop in benefits, going from $280 a month to $23.

Chasity Harris, 42, said the $519 in benefits she has received monthly since October makes a big difference for her and her granddaughter. Once the emergency allotment is cut, she said, she knows she can do what it takes to make sure there’s food on the table in her home but that doesn’t mean it’ll be easy.

“You can’t eat healthy without having a nice little budget,” Harris said. “Bad food is cheap. Just because I can manage doesn’t mean I’m getting everything that we need. I’m buying the cheapest stuff.”

A study published by the Urban Institute estimated that the SNAP emergency allotments helped more than 4 million people stay above the poverty line in late 2021. Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic people saw the biggest reduction in poverty levels, according to the study.

In Montana, the expanded SNAP benefits were cut in summer 2021. Brent Weisgram, vice president and chief operating officer of the Montana Food Bank Network, said that reporting from the network’s partners shows a 24% increase in the number of households seeking assistance from emergency food pantries from July 2021 to July 2022.

Weisgram said food pantries are not prepared to absorb the impact of the cut to the largest federal nutrition assistance program and are strictly a supplemental resource.

Food banks nationwide are still coping with increased demand that began in 2020, Cheyne said. That lingering need from the pandemic, coupled with food price inflation, leaves food pantries less prepared for demand resulting from cuts to the SNAP emergency allotments.

While the FISH food pantry has enough meat for families now, King said, she worries about whether it’ll be enough six months from now. On a scale of 1 to 10, King said, her level of concern regarding the consequences of the looming SNAP cuts is a 9.

If history is any indication, her concerns are valid.

In 2009, SNAP recipients received, on average, about 15% to 20% more in benefits as the federal government responded to the challenges of the Great Recession. A family of four received $80 more a month in benefits. In 2013, the government rolled the boosted benefits back, averaging a 7% cut for households. The effects were immediate and long-term, Cheyne said, including significant spikes in food insecurity and poverty-related hunger that lasted for nearly a decade.

The cuts this time around are much greater than in 2013 and there’s much less time for states to prepare, making it more difficult to ensure SNAP recipients are aware of the benefits they’re about to lose.

While families and individuals are expected to turn elsewhere, like food banks, other aid organizations face challenges brought on by inflation and rising food costs.

The Food Bank of Northern Nevada, which helps supply food pantries in smaller communities, including FISH, has seen a drop in food donations during the past six months, said Jocelyn Lantrip, director of marketing and communications for the food bank. Staffers are “scrambling” to source and buy enough food to meet the expected increase in demand, she said.

King said the FISH food pantry will depend on donations because its grant dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to because of inflation. But they’ll do everything they can to meet the needs of their community, which go far beyond food assistance. The food boxes are just a spoke on the wheel of services FISH and other food pantries provide, such as assistance with signing up for SNAP and other benefit programs, housing, and referrals to mental health providers.

Despite the challenging road ahead for the small food pantry, King is hopeful.

“I feel that everybody who has the power to help is doing everything they can to help us,” she said. “You just gotta look at your food and say, ‘OK, how long can I make this last and make a difference in someone’s life?’”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

El año pasado, Dorio le explicó a legisladores estatales que el problema era que el hospital tenía derecho a invalidar los deseos de la familia porque el paciente no había hecho un documento de directiva avanzada, ni había designado a alguien con poder notarial. El hospital optó por escuchar a la familia, pero según la ley del estado, los deseos de la familia no tenían peso.

Eso ya no es así. Desde el 1 de enero, California se sumó a otros 45 estados y al Distrito de Columbia con leyes que permiten a una persona tomar decisiones en nombre de un paciente, incluso si no estaba autorizada por el paciente antes de que ocurriera la situación médica.

La lista incluye cónyuges o parejas de hecho, hermanos, hijos y nietos adultos, padres y un pariente adulto o amigo íntimo; y en muchos casos, a las personas que llevaron al paciente para que lo atendieran en un primer momento.

“Los hospitales y las HMO podían usurpar los derechos de las familias y tomar decisiones médicas críticas en virtud de la ley vigente en aquel momento, incluidas las decisiones de desconectar al paciente”, explicó a KHN Dorio, especialista en geriatría de Santa Clarita y miembro de la organización no partidista California Senior Legislature. “Sabíamos que necesitábamos una ley como la que tienen la mayoría de los otros estados”.

Según datos analizados por investigadores de Penn Medicine, solo un tercio de los adultos estadounidenses tiene o bien instrucciones previas, que detallan lo que quieren sobre su atención médica, o bien un poder médico, que autoriza a otra persona a tomar esas decisiones.

Según sus partidarios, la finalidad detrás de la ley de parentesco es darles facultad a los representantes para que aboguen por los pacientes en lugar de permitir que un hospital tome las decisiones médicas, que pueden estar influenciadas por el costo, las camas disponibles o las presiones de los seguros.

“Esta ley libera de presión a los hospitales, a los que se pide que presten asistencia, salven vidas, se ocupen de Medicare, de los seguros… de muchas cosas a la vez”, afirmó Michele Mann, abogada de Valencia, California, especializada en planificación patrimonial, incluidas las directivas avanzadas.

Los derechos médicos de los pacientes han evolucionado a lo largo de los años, pero es un misterio por qué el estado ha tardado tanto tiempo en aprobar una ley de parentesco. Cuando la California Senior Legislature, que patrocina y promueve leyes destinadas a ayudar a la población de edad avanzada, pidió ayuda a la Oficina del Asesor Legislativo del Estado con el proyecto de ley algunos abogados se sorprendieron de ya no hubiera una ley vigente, dijo Dorio.

Los pacientes que no disponen de un documento de directivas avanzadas o de un poder notarial pueden designar a un sustituto, aunque solo sea declarándolo verbalmente en el hospital, pero, obviamente, es necesario que el paciente esté consciente.

Si un paciente llega a un hospital o centro médico incapacitado o lo está posteriormente, los proveedores deben hacer un esfuerzo de buena fe para encontrar a una persona autorizada a tomar decisiones médicas, según una ley de California en vigor desde 2005.

Los pasos incluyen revisar las pertenencias del paciente y ponerse en contacto con cualquier persona que el hospital “crea razonablemente que tiene autoridad” para tomar decisiones a través de directivas o de un poder notarial. El hospital debe demostrar que se ha puesto en contacto con el secretario de estado para preguntar si el paciente tenía instrucciones anticipadas.

Con la nueva ley vigente, los proveedores de atención médica deben comprobar si el paciente tiene directivas avanzadas o un poder notarial. Pero una vez que los funcionarios han determinado que no existe ninguno, pueden recurrir a la lista de parientes más próximos, todos los cuales están legalmente autorizados a hablar en nombre del paciente.

“Es innovador”, afirmó Mann, que toma decisiones por su hermana, que tiene esclerosis múltiple y vive en un centro de cuidados de largo plazo. “Con la lista de parientes cercanos, a menudo la persona que trae al paciente es un familiar o un amigo íntimo que conoce claramente los deseos del paciente. En esos casos, se acabó la búsqueda del hospital: hay un representante legalmente autorizado”.

El proyecto de ley AB 2338, presentado por el asambleísta Mike Gipson, agregó una sección al código de sucesiones, y se asemeja a la forma en que la mayoría de los estados maneja la división de los bienes de una persona después de su muerte.

En California, cuando una persona muere sin dejar testamento, sus bienes y propiedades se distribuyen siguiendo un orden de prioridad fijo y descendiente: primero el cónyuge, después los hijos, los padres, los hermanos, etc. Ahora, las decisiones médicas de una persona se decidirán de la misma manera, pero no necesariamente en el mismo orden.

California otorga a los hospitales y a los proveedores médicos la discreción de decidir qué familiar o amigo íntimo puede tomar decisiones médicas, una disposición introducida en el proyecto de ley después de que la influyente Asociación de Hospitales de California y otros grupos médicos se opusieran a una jerarquía pre establecida.

Algunos expertos se preguntan hasta qué punto será eficaz la nueva ley, ya que los hospitales conservan la facultad de elegir al representante del paciente, sobre todo si hay opiniones encontradas entre los miembros de la familia.

“Aunque no tengo motivos para creer que vayan a abusar del poder, los hospitales pueden decidir quién sería una buena persona para tomar decisiones”, dijo Alexander Capron, experto en derecho médico y ética, y profesor emérito de la Universidad del Sur de California.

Lois Richardson, vicepresidenta y asesora jurídica de la asociación de hospitales, dijo que un orden estricto de sustitutos a menudo no refleja lo que un paciente desearía. “La preocupación siempre ha sido que, en muchos casos, una jerarquía estatutaria estricta no refleja las relaciones familiares reales”, agregó.

El cabildeo de los hospitales abandonó su oposición después de que Gipson accediera a dar flexibilidad al sector, y la medida se aprobó en la legislatura prácticamente sin oposición.

Lo ideal sería que las personas dispusieran de un documento de directivas avanzadas para garantizar el cumplimiento de sus deseos, según Gipson. Pero para las personas mayores, las que viven solas y cualquiera que no tenga este documento, la ley abre el abanico de personas que pueden actuar en su nombre, incluido un amigo íntimo que bien podría ser de familia.

“Al menos así, tienes a alguien que sabe lo que quieres tomando esas decisiones”, indicó Gipson, “en lugar de dejarlo en manos de un hospital”.

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

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Los murciélagos en todo el mundo son vectores primarios para la transmisión de virus de animales a humanos. Generalmente esos virus son inofensivos para los murciélagos, pero pueden ser mortales para los humanos.

Por ejemplo, en China, los murciélagos de herradura se citan como una causa probable del brote de covid-19. Y los investigadores creen que la presión ejercida sobre los murciélagos por el cambio climático y la invasión del desarrollo humano han aumentado la frecuencia con la que los virus saltan de estos animales a las personas, causando lo que se conoce como enfermedades zoonóticas.

“Estos eventos indirectos son el resultado de una cascada de factores estresantes: el hábitat de los murciélagos cambia, el clima se vuelve más extremo, los murciélagos se trasladan a áreas humanas para encontrar comida”, dijo Raina Plowright, ecologista de enfermedades y coautora de un artículo reciente en la revista Nature y otro en Ecology Letters sobre el papel de los cambios ecológicos en las enfermedades.

Es por eso que Agnieszka Rynda-Apple, inmunóloga de la Universidad Estatal de Montana (MSU), planea traer murciélagos frugívoros (o de la fruta) de Jamaica a Bozeman este invierno para iniciar una colonia de reproducción y acelerar el trabajo de su laboratorio como parte de un equipo de 70 investigadores en siete países.

El grupo, llamado BatOneHealth, fundado por Plowright, espera encontrar formas de predecir dónde el póximo virus mortal podría dar el salto de los murciélagos a las personas. “Estamos colaborando para responder a la pregunta de por qué los murciélagos son un vector tan fantástico”, dijo Rynda-Apple.

“Estamos tratando de entender qué es lo que hace que sus sistemas inmunológicos retengan el virus y cuál es la situación en la que lo eliminan”, agregó.

Para estudiar el papel del estrés nutricional, explicó que los investigadores crean diferentes dietas para estos mamíferos, “los infectan con el virus de la influenza y luego estudian cuánto virus están eliminando, la duración de la eliminación viral y su respuesta antiviral”.

Si bien Rynda Apple y sus colegas ya han estado haciendo este tipo de experimentos, la cría de murciélagos les permitirá ampliar la investigación. Es un esfuerzo arduo comprender a fondo cómo el cambio ambiental contribuye al estrés nutricional, y predecir mejor el efecto indirecto.

“Si realmente podemos entender todas las piezas del rompecabezas, eso nos dará herramientas para volver atrás y pensar en medidas contra-ecológicas que podemos poner en práctica para romper el ciclo de los efectos indirectos”, dijo Andrew Hoegh, profesor asistente de estadísticas en MSU que está creando modelos para posibles escenarios indirectos.

El pequeño equipo de investigadores de la MSU trabaja con un investigador del Rocky Mountain Laboratories de los Institutos Nacionales de Salud en Hamilton, Montana.

Los artículos recientes publicados en Nature y Ecology Letters se centran en el virus Hendra en Australia, que es donde nació Plowright.

Hendra es un virus respiratorio que causa síntomas similares a los de la gripe y se propaga de los murciélagos a los caballos, y luego puede transmitirse a las personas que tratan a los caballos. Es mortal, con una tasa de mortalidad del 75% en caballos. De las siete personas que hasta el momento se sabe que contrajeron esta infección, cuatro murieron.

La pregunta que impulsó el trabajo de Plowright es por qué Hendra comenzó a aparecer en caballos y personas en la década de 1990, a pesar de que los murciélagos probablemente han albergado al virus por millones de años.

La investigación demuestra que la razón es el cambio ambiental. Plowright comenzó su investigación sobre murciélagos en 2006. En muestras tomadas de murciélagos australianos llamados zorros voladores, ella y sus colegas rara vez detectaron el virus.

Después de que el ciclón tropical Larry frente a la costa del Territorio del Norte australiano acabara con la fuente de alimento de los murciélagos en 2005-06, cientos de miles de animales simplemente desaparecieron. Sin embargo, encontraron una pequeña población de murciélagos débiles y hambrientos cargados con el virus Hendra.

Eso llevó a Plowright a centrarse en el estrés nutricional como un factor clave en el efecto indirecto. El equipo analizó 25 años de datos sobre la pérdida de hábitat, el derrame y el clima, y descubrieron un vínculo entre la pérdida de fuentes de alimento causada por el cambio ambiental y las altas cargas virales en murciélagos estresados por la comida.

En el año posterior a un patrón climático de El Niño, con sus altas temperaturas, que ocurren cada pocos años, muchos árboles de eucalipto no producen las flores con el néctar que necesitan los murciélagos. Y la invasión humana de otros hábitats, desde las granjas hasta el desarrollo urbano, ha eliminado las fuentes alternativas de alimentos. Entonces, los murciélagos tienden a mudarse a áreas urbanas con higueras, mangos y otros árboles deficientes y, estresados, propagan los virus.

Cuando los murciélagos excretan orina y heces, los caballos las inhalan mientras huelen el suelo. Los investigadores esperan que su trabajo con murciélagos infectados con Hendra ilustre un principio universal: cómo la destrucción y la alteración de la naturaleza pueden aumentar la probabilidad de que los patógenos mortales pasen de los animales salvajes a los humanos.

Las tres fuentes más probables de contagio son los murciélagos, los mamíferos y los artrópodos, especialmente las garrapatas. Alrededor del 60% de las enfermedades infecciosas emergentes que infectan a los humanos provienen de animales, y alrededor de dos tercios de ellas provienen de animales salvajes.

La idea de que la deforestación y la invasión humana de las tierras salvajes alimentan las pandemias no es nueva. Por ejemplo, expertos creen que el VIH, que causa el SIDA, infectó a los humanos por primera vez cuando la gente comía chimpancés en África central. Un brote en Malasia a fines de 1998 y principios de 1999 del virus Nipah transmitido por murciélagos se propagó de murciélagos a cerdos. Los cerdos lo amplificaron y se propagó a los humanos, con un brote que infectó a 276 personas, y mató a 106.

Ahora está emergiendo la conexión con el estrés provocado por los cambios ambientales.

Una pieza crítica de este complejo rompecabezas es el sistema inmunológico de los murciélagos. Los murciélagos frugívoros de Jamaica que vivirán en la MSU ayudarán a los investigadores a obtener más información sobre los efectos del estrés nutricional en su carga viral.

Vincent Munster, jefe de la unidad de ecología de virus de Rocky Mountain Laboratories y miembro de BatOneHealth, también está analizando diferentes especies de murciélagos para comprender mejor la ecología del contagio. “Hay 1,400 especies diferentes de murciélagos y hay diferencias muy significativas entre los que albergan coronavirus y los murciélagos que albergan el virus del Ébola”, dijo Munster. “Y murciélagos que viven cientos de miles juntos versus murciélagos que son relativamente solitarios”.

Mientras tanto, Gary Tabor, esposo de Plowright, es presidente del Center for Large Landscape Conservation, una organización sin fines de lucro que aplica la ecología de la investigación de enfermedades para proteger el hábitat de la vida silvestre, en parte, para garantizar que la vida silvestre esté adecuadamente alimentada y protegerse contra la propagación de virus.

“La fragmentación del hábitat es un problema de salud planetaria que no se está abordando lo suficiente, dado que el mundo continúa experimentando niveles sin precedentes de deforestación”, dijo Tabor.

A medida que mejore la capacidad de predecir brotes, otras estrategias se vuelven posibles. Los modelos que pueden predecir dónde podría extenderse el virus Hendra podrían conducir a la vacunación de los caballos en esas áreas. Otra posible solución es el conjunto de “contramedidas ecológicas” a las que se refirió Hoegh, como la plantación a gran escala de eucaliptos en flor para que los murciélagos zorros voladores no se vean obligados a buscar néctar en áreas desarrolladas.

“En este momento, el mundo está enfocado en cómo podemos detener la próxima pandemia”, dijo Plowright. “Desafortunadamente, preservar o restaurar la naturaleza rara vez es parte de la discusión”.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Bats worldwide are primary vectors for virus transmission from animals to humans. Those viruses often are harmless to bats but can be deadly to humans. Horseshoe bats in China, for example, are cited as a likely cause of the covid-19 outbreak. And researchers believe pressure put on bats by climate change and encroachment from human development have increased the frequency of viruses jumping from bats to people, causing what are known as zoonotic diseases.

“Spillover events are the result of a cascade of stressors — bat habitat is cleared, climate becomes more extreme, bats move into human areas to find food,” said Raina Plowright, a disease ecologist and co-author of a recent paper in the journal Nature and another in Ecology Letters on the role of ecological changes in disease.

That’s why Montana State University immunologist Agnieszka Rynda-Apple plans to bring the Jamaican fruit bats to Bozeman this winter to start a breeding colony and accelerate her lab’s work as part of a team of 70 researchers in seven countries. The group, called BatOneHealth — founded by Plowright — hopes to find ways to predict where the next deadly virus might make the leap from bats to people.

“We’re collaborating on the question of why bats are such a fantastic vector,” said Rynda-Apple. “We’re trying to understand what is it about their immune systems that makes them retain the virus, and what is the situation in which they shed the virus.”

To study the role of nutritional stress, researchers create different diets for them, she said, “and infect them with the influenza virus and then study how much virus they are shedding, the length of the viral shedding, and their antiviral response.”

While she and her colleagues have already been doing these kinds of experiments, breeding bats will allow them to expand the research.

It’s a painstaking effort to thoroughly understand how environmental change contributes to nutritional stress and to better predict spillover. “If we can really understand all the pieces of the puzzle, that gives us tools to go back in and think about eco-counter measures that we can put in place that will break the cycle of spillovers,” said Andrew Hoegh, an assistant professor of statistics at MSU who is creating models for possible spillover scenarios.

The small team of researchers at MSU works with a researcher at the National Institutes of Health’s Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Hamilton, Montana.

The recent papers published in Nature and Ecology Letters focus on the Hendra virus in Australia, which is where Plowright was born. Hendra is a respiratory virus that causes flu-like symptoms and spreads from bats to horses, and then can be passed on to people who treat the horses. It is deadly, with a mortality rate of 75% in horses. Of the seven people known to have been infected, four died.

The question that propelled Plowright’s work is why Hendra began to show up in horses and people in the 1990s, even though bats have likely hosted the virus for eons. The research demonstrates that the reason is environmental change.

Plowright began her bat research in 2006. In samples taken from Australian bats called flying foxes, she and her colleagues rarely detected the virus. After Tropical Cyclone Larry off the coast of the Northern Territory wiped out the bats’ food source in 2005-06, hundreds of thousands of the animals simply disappeared. However, they found one small population of weak and starving bats loaded with the Hendra virus. That led Plowright to focus on nutritional stress as a key player in spillover.

She and her collaborators scoured 25 years of data on habitat loss, spillover, and climate and discovered a link between the loss of food sources caused by environmental change and high viral loads in food-stressed bats.

In the year after an El Niño climate pattern, with its high temperatures — occurring every few years — many eucalyptus trees don’t produce the flowers with nectar the bats need. And human encroachment on other habitats, from farms to urban development, has eliminated alternative food sources. And so the bats tend to move into urban areas with substandard fig, mango, and other trees, and, stressed, shed virus. When the bats excrete urine and feces, horses inhale it while sniffing the ground.

The researchers hope their work with Hendra-infected bats will illustrate a universal principle: how the destruction and alteration of nature can increase the likelihood that deadly pathogens will spill over from wild animals to humans.

The three most likely sources of spillover are bats, mammals, and arthropods, especially ticks. Some 60% of emerging infectious diseases that infect humans come from animals, and about two-thirds of those come from wild animals.

The idea that deforestation and human encroachment into wild land fuels pandemics is not new. For example, experts believe that HIV, which causes AIDS, first infected humans when people ate chimpanzees in central Africa. A Malaysian outbreak in late 1998 and early 1999 of the bat-borne Nipah virus spread from bats to pigs. The pigs amplified it, and it spread to humans, infecting 276 people and killing 106 in that outbreak. Now emerging is the connection to stress brought on by environmental changes.

One critical piece of this complex puzzle is bat immune systems. The Jamaican fruit bats kept at MSU will help researchers learn more about the effects of nutritional stress on their viral load.

Vincent Munster, chief of the virus ecology unit of Rocky Mountain Laboratories and a member of BatOneHealth, is also looking at different species of bats to better understand the ecology of spillover. “There are 1,400 different bat species and there are very significant differences between bats who harbor coronaviruses and bats who harbor Ebola virus,” said Munster. “And bats who live with hundreds of thousands together versus bats who are relatively solitary.”

Meanwhile, Plowright’s husband, Gary Tabor, is president of the Center for Large Landscape Conservation, a nonprofit that applies ecology of disease research to protect wildlife habitat — in part, to assure that wildlife is adequately nourished and to guard against virus spillover.

“Habitat fragmentation is a planetary health issue that is not being sufficiently addressed, given the world continues to experience unprecedented levels of land clearing,” said Tabor.

As the ability to predict outbreaks improves, other strategies become possible. Models that can predict where the Hendra virus could spill over could lead to vaccination for horses in those areas.

Another possible solution is the set of “eco-counter measures” Hoegh referred to — such as large-scale planting of flowering eucalyptus trees so flying foxes won’t be forced to seek nectar in developed areas.

“Right now, the world is focused on how we can stop the next pandemic,” said Plowright. “Unfortunately, preserving or restoring nature is rarely part of the discussion.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KHN

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories

Sarah Varney
KHN

@sarahvarney4

Read Sarah's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

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

Click to open the transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Most of the surrounding states, too.

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

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

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

Rovner: True.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: All right. Well, I think that’s it for our discussion. Thank you, for those of you who have hung with us this long. I hope we’ve given a good overview of the landscape. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. Usually that’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. But this week I’ve asked each of the panelists to choose their favorite or most meaningful story about reproductive health from the last year. As always, don’t worry if you miss it; we will post the links on the podcast page at khn.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Alice, why don’t you go first this week?

Ollstein: Yes, I think I’ve promoted this story before, but I just can’t say enough good things about it. It’s really stuck with me. It’s from the New York Times Magazine by Lizzie Presser, and it’s called “She Wasn’t Ready for Children. A Judge Wouldn’t Let Her Have an Abortion.” And it really digs into what happens to teenagers who need to get their parent’s consent and can’t in order to have an abortion. They have this judicial bypass process where their lives, the fate of their lives are in the hands of an individual judge, who, in many cases, as this article demonstrates, come with their own biases and preconceptions about abortion. And then it just follows this one teenager who was denied an abortion, ended up having twins, and just completely struggled financially, her mental health. And she in the end said, you know, I knew what was right for me. I knew I needed an abortion. And it’s a very moving, painful story that shines a light on a piece of the story that I think is overlooked.

Rovner: Yeah. Sandhya.

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

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

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

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

All right. That is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoyed the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth — all one word — @kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m @jrovner. Sandhya?

Raman: @SandhyaWrites

Rovner: Alice?

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein

Rovner: Sarah.

Varney: And @SarahVarney4

Rovner: Will be back in your feed with our regular news rundown next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio Producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).