Gavin Newsom to support food makers’ nightmare scenario — a first-in-the-nation law banning certain food additives in the state, which was signed into law last year.

Wagner is best known for his co-ownership of Magnolia Pictures alongside his longtime business partner Mark Cuban. But now, he told STAT in an extended interview, he’s dedicating himself to fighting food makers and their industrial creations, ultra-processed foods.

“I want people angry,” said Wagner, who is worth an estimated $1.9 billion. “This is an indictment of the food companies that have tainted our food supply, and now we wake up 50, 60 years later with a nation that is unhealthy.”

Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is Vice President Kamala Harris’ choice of running mate. Walz — also a former U.S. congressman, high school teacher, and member of the National Guard — has a folksy, Midwestern affect and a liberal record. He has signed bills expanding abortion rights and medical care for transgender people as governor and represented a swing district in the House of Representatives.

Meanwhile, the number of abortions taking place in the U.S. since the overturn of Roe v. Wade continued to rise into early this year, according to a new study. That is frustrating abortion opponents, who are seeking more ways to bring the numbers down, even if it means barring pregnant women from traveling to other states.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Panelists

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefalil

Read Shefali's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Walz has been active on health issues, including capping insulin prices, codifying access to abortion and gender-affirming care, and supporting veterans’ health, as well as challenging hospital consolidation efforts. In fact, the similarities between him and Harris highlight unity among Democrats on key health issues.
• Meanwhile, the GOP vice presidential nominee, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, said in an interview that reforming the Affordable Care Act would still be on the table if Trump were reelected, though he did not elaborate. The lack of specificity in the GOP’s plans leaves a lot unknown about what a second Trump administration would do with health policy.
• A recent report shows the number of abortions continued to rise amid restrictions. How? Telehealth is a major reason for the trend. And a separate report shows hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars have been funneled to crisis pregnancy centers since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, reflecting an effort in conservative state legislatures to steer funding to centers that discourage abortion.
• And Congress has departed for its August recess without funding the federal government, again. Those eyeing other must-pass legislation, such as extended telehealth flexibilities and pharmacy benefit manager reform, are banking on the lame-duck session after the election.

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

Julie Rovner: JAMA Internal Medicine’s “Health, Access to Care, and Financial Barriers to Care Among People Incarcerated in US Prisons,” by Emily Lupton Lupez; Steffie Woolhandler; David U. Himmelstein; et al.

Shefali Luthra: KFF Health News’ “Inside Project 2025: Former Trump Official Outlines Hard Right Turn Against Abortion,” by Stephanie Armour.

Sandhya Raman: The War Horse’s “‘I Had a Body Part Repossessed’: Post-9/11 Amputee Vets Say VA Care Is Failing Them,” by Hope Hodge Seck.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• ProPublica’s “Texas Sends Millions to Crisis Pregnancy Centers. It’s Meant To Help Needy Families, But No One Knows if It Works,” by Cassandra Jaramillo, Jeremy Kohler, and Sophie Chou, ProPublica, and Jessica Kegu, CBS News.
• Vox’s “Free Medical School Won’t Solve the Doctor Shortage,” by Dylan Scott.
• Stat’s “How UnitedHealth Turned a Questionable Artery-Screening Program Into a Gold Mine,” by Casey Ross, Lizzy Lawrence, Bob Herman, and Tara Bannow.
• The Wall Street Journal’s “The One-Hour Nurse Visits That Let Insurers Collect $15 Billion From Medicare,” by Anna Wilde Mathews, Christopher Weaver, Tom McGinty, and Mark Maremont.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Walz Record

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’ Episode Title: ‘The Walz Record’Episode Number: 359Published: Aug. 8, 2024

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Aug. 8, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this, so here we go.

We are joined today via videoconference by Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning.

Rovner: And Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Shefali Luthra: Hello.

Rovner: No interview this week, but plenty of news for a hot summer week so we will get right to it. So for the second time in three weeks, we have a new vice-presidential nominee to talk about. Newly minted Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris has chosen former congressman and current Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to be her running mate. What do we know about Walz’s record on health care?

Raman: We know a lot. I think it’s easier to draw from his record compared to JD Vance, who was only elected for the first time in 2022. Tim Walz has had six terms in the House. He’s on his second term as governor. And from that you can see what his priorities are, how he’s drawn from his personal experience and the things that he’s been doing that are very in line with what either Biden and Harris or just Harris have done. When we had Biden, we hear a lot of talk about capping insulin costs, and that’s something that Walz signed a Minnesota bill for a few years ago. And he’s also been very active in reproductive health issues. He signed a couple abortion-related laws last year. That’s been a key focus of the Harris and Biden-Harris campaigns. He’s been active in talking about IVF and how his family has used that, also pretty in line with that.

Rovner: I love that he had a daughter using IVF, whose name is Hope.

Raman: Yeah, yeah.

Rovner: Very Midwestern.

Raman: Yes, and I think he’s also been pretty active on some of the veterans’ issues as a former member of the Army National Guard for several years. And just some of the education and health issues as a former teacher. And he signed legislation related to gender-affirming care as governor. So I think we have a pretty good idea of the types of things that he’d be interested in if they were elected.

Luthra: And I think what’s striking as well is how in line he seems to be on so many policy fronts to what we know the vice president and, frankly, what we know about the other people who were in contention for the vice-presidential nomination. And what I think that tells us is how unified a lot of the party is right now on health care and health policy issues in general. I was pretty struck by how quickly we got reactions from both pro-abortion rights groups and anti-abortion rights groups. As soon as the news came, SBA [Susan B. Anthony] Pro-Life America, one of the biggest anti-abortion groups, is quick to say this is the most pro-abortion ticket in history. They might be right.

Rovner: I was going to say it’s probably true.

Luthra: Yeah. And they could have said that about any Harris, et cetera, ticket, whether that was Walz, whether that was [Pennsylvania Gov. Josh] Shapiro, whether that was someone else from her reported list of finalists. And at the same time, what we saw from abortion rights advocates is they’re equally thrilled about this because they look at Walz as an ally. They look at the work that was done in Minnesota around getting rid of abortion bans; codifying abortion rights in the state constitution; limiting requirements like the 24-hour waiting period: That is gone in the state. And passing a shield law.

All of that underscores that he’s very in line with the vice president. I think what’s worth asking ourselves is how much does that matter when we have someone like Kamala Harris who is very interested in these issues. And in a way, we know far less about JD Vance. But whatever we could find out about him probably matters a lot more because Donald Trump has never shown much interest in health care or health policy. So if we did get a Trump-Vance ticket, it feels like there is a real possibility we’d have a lot more Vance influence in this area as opposed to Walz in a Harris-Walz administration.

Rovner: Which we’ll get to in a second. Just something that jumped out at me when I was researching this is that there’d been much made about the fact that Harris is the first presidential candidate who’s actually visited an abortion clinic. Well, so has Walz. So we’ve now got a presidential candidate and a vice-presidential candidate who have visited an abortion clinic. And I’m thinking even 15, 20 years ago on a Democratic ticket, how much the world has changed since the fall of Roe [v. Wade], that that never would’ve been something that anybody would’ve wanted to advertise. I think it speaks volumes as to really how big reproductive health is going to be going forward in this campaign.

Raman: They went together when they visited a clinic together in St. Paul [Minnesota] earlier. So I think that speaks to it, too, that it is a very important issue for both of them and that it is definitely going to be something the other side is going to really seize on and a point of distinction.

Rovner: Meanwhile, as Shefali alluded to, the Republicans continue to bob and weave on health care issues. Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance told the news site Notice earlier this week that the ACA [Affordable Care Act] is indeed on the agenda for a second Trump administration, although he didn’t say exactly how. “I think we’re definitely going to have to fix the health care problem in this country,” was his exact quote. Any hints to what that might entail?

Raman: Honestly, no. I think that everything that we’ve heard so far has really just put multiple things up on the table without giving any specifics. Is the ACA repeal-and-replace still on the table? It depends on do we have a majority, do we have a minority, in Congress? And what would that even entail given that we had the whole thing in 2017 where it didn’t work out for them? And Trump has hinted back and forth and not been very clear, so we’re still not sure without more clarity from them.

Rovner: The rest of what JD Vance said was “Obamacare is still too expensive and a lot of people can’t afford it, and if they can’t afford it, they don’t get high-quality care, and we’re going to give them high-quality care.” And my thought was, that would be great. How on earth do you plan to make Obamacare less expensive and care higher quality? That seems like a rather tall order, but a great goal.

Luthra: And realistically, right? We don’t have, as Sandhya pointed out, a real record for JD Vance to look at. We do have a record for Donald Trump, but we don’t have statements of principle or value that we can really attribute to him. We don’t know what he really would do because we don’t know what he believes in. And that, I think, is why we put so much attention in the press. And why we’ve seen Democrats put so much attention on what Republican think tanks are talking about. And what the people who would staff those administrations would say. That is why something like Project 2025 merits so much scrutiny because those are the people who will be in power in institutions of government and potentially interpreting these kinds of vague sentences into actual policy that touches our lives.

Rovner: We don’t know very much of what Donald Trump really thinks about health care because he wants it that way. He wants to keep all of his options open. But one of the things that we do know is that he’s repeatedly promised not to touch Social Security or Medicare, the so-called third rails of American politics. He has specifically declined, however, to include Medicaid on that list of things that he won’t touch. And now we’re reading various proposals — as you mentioned, from Project 2025 to the Paragon Institute, which is run by a former Trump official — that are proposing various ways to scale back Medicaid, particularly federal Medicaid spending, possibly dramatically. Did they not learn from the 2017 repeal-and-replace fight that Medicaid, now that it covers like 90 million people, is kind of pretty popular?

Raman: I think that even after that, we’ve had so many times that we’ve seen in that administration trying to modify the ways that they can with Medicaid. We had the try to push for block grant proposals multiple times. We’ve had the work requirements try to come to fruition in multiple states before being struck down by the courts. And those things are still pretty popular if you look at the documents put out by a lot of these think tanks as something that could be brought up again. Including pulling back on expansion as a way that they see as really reducing federal spending, especially as they’re trying to reduce the national debt and just bring down costs in general.

Rovner: Pulling back on the federal match for expansion, more to the point.

Raman: Because Medicaid expansion is largely funded by the federal government. And so I think those are things that we could see given the history and the people that are working in those places and their connections to the former administration.

Luthra: And I do think it’s worth noting that Trump has said right now that he would not want to touch Social Security or Medicare. I think we can also put a few grains of salt, maybe some more salt, in there, because that is also what he said when he ran for president in 2016. And again, that isn’t really what he was as committed to as president. It was: What does [House Speaker] Paul Ryan want to do? What will I be willing to negotiate on? And with Trump in particular, there is such a distinction between knowing what is politically pragmatic to say in a campaign versus what is on the table as an administration, that I just think that it is incumbent on all of us to not take that with too much credibility, just in this very specific case.

Rovner: And also Social Security and Medicare sometimes need touching, saying that you’re not going to touch, leaving them on autopilot, is not a very responsible public policy. You actually do have to get under the hood occasionally and do things to these programs. But before we get to that, I want to talk a little bit more about abortion. This week, the Society of Family Planning, which is tracking the number of abortions around the U.S. in the wake of the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] ruling, reported that the volume of abortions continues to increase despite complete bans in 14 states and near-bans in several others. Shefali, how is this happening? Why is the number of abortions going up? One would think it would be going down.

Luthra: I think these numbers are really striking. They show a continuation of a trend, which is largely this increase in telehealth. More people getting abortion through, in some cases, shield law provision, living in states like Texas and getting pills mailed to them from doctors in New York. Or the fact that it is simply easier to get an abortion if you live in a state with abortion protections because telehealth is much more available right now. The numbers also do show more in-clinic care because people are traveling and overcoming great distances to get abortion.

One thing that I think is really important and that the authors had noted when this came out was these go through March. And on May 1, Florida’s abortion ban took effect, and that is one of the biggest abortion bans that we have seen since the Dobbs decision. And I think it will be really interesting to see whether the trend that we have been observing for quite some time — this steady increase and, in particular, growth of telehealth and continued travel — if that remains possible and viable when you lose a state with as many clinics and as many people as Florida had had.

Rovner: I saw Stephen Miller, the Trump adviser, on TV last night talking about “There will be no national abortion ban under Donald Trump,” which is a whole other discussion. But these numbers, and continuing to go up, must be making the anti-abortion movement crazy.

Luthra: They are losing their minds. They are deeply frustrated on two levels. They’re very concerned that people are finding ways to travel. That is not something they hoped for. And they are very concerned about telehealth in particular. And what they keep saying is they want to find some kind of legal strategy to challenge the shield law provision, but they haven’t quite figured out how. There is real talk in Texas among some of the anti-abortion activists. They’re trying to see is there a way we could pass legislation in a future session to perhaps ban internet providers from showing the websites that allow you to order medication abortion.

Something like that. All of this would be fought through the courts. All of this would be heavily litigated. But it is their No. 1 priority because it is an existential threat to abortion bans. Obviously, they are waiting to see what happens in the presidential election because if you do have an administration that is willing to restrict the ability to mail mifepristone through rehabilitating the Comstock Act — not passing a national abortion ban, but using older laws on the books — then that does some of the job for them and could very significantly put a dent in or even halt this trend.

Rovner: Well, speaking of the abortion pill, we’re seeing pressure campaigns from both sides now aimed at some of the big corporations, including Costco and Walmart, that could start selling the abortion pill in their brick-and-mortar pharmacies. This is something that the Food and Drug Administration, at least, started to make easier earlier in the Biden administration. Now we have institutional investors from blue states pushing companies to carry the drug to make it more available, or else they will divest their very large stock holdings. While we have institutional investors that represent anti-abortion groups, like the American Family Association, who are threatening to divest if the companies do start selling the abortion pills, I would not like to be on the board of any one of these big corporations right now. This seems like a rather uncomfortable place for them to be.

Luthra: Yeah, and none of this is surprising. Alice Ollstein, regular contributor to this podcast, broke a really great story, gosh, a year and a half ago now, when we saw that even CVS and Walgreens, for a time, didn’t want to distribute mifepristone in states where abortion was legal, but there were threats of litigation from attorneys general. And that has changed. The story points out that we have CVS and Walgreens carrying these pills and distributing them. But a lot of people do get medication from Costco. A lot of people do get medication from Walmart. What we’ll see is that this is just another way in which the fight over abortion, which has real meaning for so many people, just continues to play out in the corporate sector. It is something that has been true since Dobbs happened. It is just another sign of how much people care about this and the money behind it and the chaotic nature of banning a procedure in some states and heavily stigmatizing it even in others.

Rovner: The ripple effect of the Dobbs decision. I really do think the Supreme Court had no great appreciation for just how far into other facets of American life this was going to spread, which it definitely is. Well, even as abortions are going up, states with abortion bans are spending increasing amounts of taxpayer money on anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers that try to talk pregnant people out of terminating their pregnancies. This is flying under the radar, I feel like. We’ve seen these crisis pregnancy centers have been around for a very long time, but what we haven’t seen is the amount of money that states are now saying, “Well see, we care about pregnant women, even though we’re banning abortion, because we’re giving all this money to these crisis pregnancy centers.”

Luthra: And I was pretty struck by just how much money we have seen states put into these centers since the Dobbs decision. The report that you highlight, Julie, found that it was almost $500 million across all these states has gone in since 2022. That’s almost half a billion dollars going into these centers. And you’re right that they do fly, in some ways, under the radar. And part of that is because it is very hard to know how they spend that money. They have very, very little accountability built in place. They are not regulated the way that health care systems are. That also means if you’re a patient and you go there for seeking health care, you are not protected by HIPAA necessarily. And you often will get “care” that can be inaccurate or misleading because, fundamentally, these institutions exist to try and deter people from getting abortions, from … staying pregnant and having children.

I do think that we will see more and more of this happen, and in some ways Republicans have been very overt about that. This was the focus of the March for Life. We saw a bunch of bills in Congress that Republicans put forth talking very specifically about federal funding for anti-abortion centers. This was the biggest trend we saw in statehouses this year when it came to abortion, was passing bills that would add more funding to anti-abortion centers. It’s one area where they feel like the political consequences are far less than bans because bans are unpopular and people don’t fully understand and know what these are. And so they’re not going to get as upset with you when they hear, “Oh, you put more money into these places that are supposed to help pregnant people.” Even though the reality is we don’t actually have any metrics or data that show that they do, and we do have a lot of journalism that shows that they mislead people.

Rovner: Yeah. I will put the link back to the good investigation that ProPublica did that we talked about a couple of weeks ago about how all the money in Texas is impossible to track, basically. All right, well, the Senate last week followed the House’s lead and recessed until early September, which leaves them just a few legislative days when they get back to either finish up all 12 of the regular spending bills — spoiler, that is not going to happen — or else pass some sort-of continuing resolution to keep the government open after the Oct. 1 start of fiscal 2025. Sandhya, they went into this — we’ve said this before — with so much optimism from the Republicans: “We’re going to get these all done before Oct. 1.” Where are we?

Raman: So, at this point, we’ve gotten some work done, but it’s very unlikely we would have things done before the end of September. So the House was on track initially to vote on the House floor on their Labor HHS [Health and Human Services] spending bill, but it got derailed after there were some issues with another bill, the energy-water bill, and after they’d fallen short on their legislative branch spending bill, they recessed early.

Rovner: We should point out that while “Labor-H” is always hard to pass, those other ones tend not to be … those are ones that usually go through.

Raman: Yeah, Labor H generally is done near the end of the whole slate just because it is notoriously one of the trickier ones to get all the agreement on. And it is the biggest nondefense spending bill. So it takes longer, and so less far along on the progress with that, and we’re in August recess, both chambers are out. We won’t see any progress until September. Before the Senate left, they did advance their spending bill on the committee level. That went a lot differently than the House’s markup. So we had three people opposed, but everyone else was pretty much in agreement. A lot less eventful. It wasn’t focused on amendment debate and it was bipartisan, which is a big thing.

So we will see it when they come back, if they gravitate a little bit more towards this, if they’re shifting a little bit in between the two bills. But I think another thing to keep in mind is they have so little time this year to get so much done. They have so much recess this year for the election that it really puts a crunch on their timeline. And then there are certain people advocating that if this person wins, if that person wins, should we do a shorter-term plan spending bill so that we can get our priorities in if this party’s in control, this party has more control. So it’s a difficult situation.

Rovner: Yeah. Here we are basically heading into the home stretch for the spending bills with a gigantic question mark. As usual. Every year they say, “This won’t happen next year.” Every year this happens next year. Well, meanwhile, this is our midyear reminder that Congress also has to pass a bunch of other bills to do things like preventing some pretty big cuts to Medicare physician pay, to keep community health centers and safety-net hospitals up and running, and they have to do all this by the end of the year. I assume we’re still looking at a postelection, lame-duck session to try to wrap everything together.

Raman: I think that’s what we’re looking at. The big priority is going to be to get the government funded. And I think. as with previous years, will we get some of these other things tacked onto there? Will we get extension of telehealth flexibilities or some of the PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] reform or some of the other things that we’ve been discussing at the committee level and hoping to get across the finish line? But it’s really difficult, I think, to get some of those things done until we have this broader package. And I think it’s important that some of the times when we get the broader package, it can help pay for other of the programs that we’ve been considering at the committee level.

Rovner: That was just what I was going to say. The PBM reform, in particular, saves money. Gee, you can prevent the physician pay cut and fund community health centers.

Raman: Yeah. So I think a lot of it will depend on how quickly they’re able to get to an agreement. And if you look at the differences between the House and the Senate bills, it’s billions of dollars. I think just on health spending, it was like almost a $16 billion difference in the top line number between the bills. So getting to some sort of middle ground is going to take some time to get there.

Rovner: Well, before we leave the Hill for the rest of the summer, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, where Democrats and Republicans have not always seen eye to eye under Chairman Bernie Sanders, actually came together last month to open an investigation into, and issue a subpoena to, the CEO of Steward Health Care. You may remember we talked about Steward back in May. It’s a Dallas-based, physician-owned hospital group that was sold to a private equity firm, which promptly sold the real estate the hospitals were sitting on, forcing them to then pay rent. Then the private equity group basically cashed out. And now the hospitals are floundering financially, which is threatening patient care in several states. This is the first time the committee has issued a subpoena since 1981. I did not know that before this week. And it’s kind of a big deal. This is the first, I think, I feel like, big investigation, at least among this committee, about the consequences of private equity in health care.

Raman: Yeah, I would say that, and especially because this is bipartisan. And I think there have been so many bipartisan issues over the past couple of years that it has been difficult to get the chairman and the ranking member to see eye to eye on or to prioritize in the same order. And so I really do think it is a big deal to be able to issue that subpoena and have the CEO come in in September.

Rovner: Yeah, this will be interesting. [Sen.] Bernie Sanders made a big point of dragging up some of the drug company CEOs who said pretty much what we expected them to say. But this is a little bit of a different situation and there’s a bunch of senators from both parties who have hospitals in their states that are now being threatened by the bankruptcy of Steward Health Care, so we’ll see how that goes. Speaking of profiteering in health care, we have two really excellent stories this week on pretty much the same subject: Stat News as part of its continuing investigation into the way UnitedHealthcare is squeezing extra money out of the Medicare program, particularly the Medicare Advantage program, has a piece on the use of a questionable test that’s used to diagnose peripheral artery disease, which can dramatically increase the Medicare Advantage payment for a patient who has it, just kind of coincidentally.

Along similar lines, The Wall Street Journal has a story looking at how not just United, but other major Medicare Advantage insurers, including Humana and Aetna, are using the same test, often provided during a “free home visit” by a nurse practitioner, and scoring those very same extra Medicare Advantage payments. Now, I’m old enough to remember when the biggest knock on Medicare Advantage was that, because it had fixed payments, it gave insurers an incentive to skimp on care. So we had lots of patients who couldn’t get care that they needed. Now that the payments are risk-adjusted, there’s an incentive for insurers to give too much care, or at least to suggest that patients need more care than they do; like that maybe they have peripheral artery disease when they don’t, really. Are there any suggestions floating around how to fix this? Shefali, you were alluding to this, that Medicare Advantage, in particular, can be a little bit of a sinkhole for federal funds.

Luthra: I think this is something that we have struggled with for a long time, right. And I think I was always thrilled to see a Bob Herman byline and we get another one on this Stat story. And one thing that he has written about so compellingly is that the sheer power that health care providers have. And I think we just can’t really ignore the role that they play then in being able to get all of this federal money into their system for things that we don’t necessarily need. And that’s not an easy thing to address politically because people like their hospitals. And even when you hear from lawmakers who want to talk about better regulation of hospitals, they really only talk about for-profit hospitals. Even though if you were to go to a for-profit or not-for-profit, you might see some similarities in how they approach what they bill for. And this is something that we haven’t figured out a good solution to because of how our politics work. But I’m really grateful that we get more reporting like this that helps remind us just how skewed the incentives are in our system.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s hard to blame them. These are for-profit companies that have shareholders, and their job is to figure out how to make money for their shareholders. And they do it extremely well. But the money that they’re making is coming from U.S. taxpayers, and there are patients who are caught in the middle. It’s been a thorny issue. This has been what we’ve been fighting about with Medicare for Medicare’s entire 59 years of its existence. So that will continue while we try to figure out everything else, like making this year’s budget work. Finally this week, we reported in July how Michael Bloomberg gave his alma mater, Johns Hopkins University, another billion dollars that will, among other things, eliminate medical school tuition for most of its student body. We pointed out at the time that the schools that have gone tuition-free have not actually succeeded either in getting more students to go into primary care.

There’s the concern that if you have a lot of debt, you’re going to want to go into a specialty to pay it off. Nor has it enabled more students of color to become doctors. So now Bloomberg is making his philanthropy a little bit more direct. He’s giving a combined $600 million to the four historically Black colleges and universities that have their own medical schools, including Howard [University] here in D.C., in hopes of more directly addressing equity issues that go along with patients not being able to get culturally sensitive care. HBCUs educate the vast majority of the nation’s Black doctors, so is this finally a step in the right direction with the medical education and health equity?

Raman: I would argue it is. Like you said, if you look at the data, the American Association of Medical Colleges [Association of American Medical Colleges] said half of Black doctors graduate from one of these schools. And that could really increase some of the uptake of preventative care and trust in medicine in the Black community who, I think they’ve done some polling, that are more comfortable a lot of times with other Black doctors. And I think that another point was the money is also starting another medical school to increase that pipeline as well. And that is another big thing where it’s broadening the pipeline, but also just really feeding into these goals, should be big over time.

Rovner: A continuing effort, I think there. All right, well, that is the news for this week. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Sandhya, you got yours picked first this week. Why don’t you tell us about your extra credit?

Raman: So I chose, “‘I Had a Body Part Repossessed’: Post-9/11 Amputee Vets Say VA Care Is Failing Them.” And it’s by Hope Hodge Seck at The War Horse. And it is just a really excellent piece looking at some of the concerns that amputee vets have been having and what the shortcomings are in the care from the VA [U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs], not having bills paid for some of the prosthetics or just delays in receiving them. And one interesting issue that was brought up there is that VA care for post-9/11 amputee veterans doesn’t take into account some of the needs for that population. They’re very different from maybe the needs of senior veterans. And it goes into more about how Capitol Hill is hearing some of these concerns. But read the story and learn more.

Rovner: Shefali?

Luthra: This is from KFF Health News. It is by Stephanie Armour. It is on a topic we discussed earlier on this podcast. The headline is “Inside Project 2025: Former Trump Official Outlines Hard Right Turn Against Abortion.” And what I love about this piece is it does a great job going into detail about the reproductive health ideas and agenda that is outlined in Project 2025. But I also really love that it ties that to the people who are involved in Trump World. Right? And it talks about who are the people who wrote this. Roger Severino, obviously a huge name, very anti-abortion, was involved in Trump’s HHS when he was president last time, and …

Rovner: Did the Office for Civil Rights.

Luthra: Exactly, which has huge implications for abortion policy and reproductive health policy. And I think that Stephanie does a really great job of getting into the political back and forth that has emerged over Project 2025, in which Trump himself has tried to distance himself from the document, from what it outlines and what it says. But that doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny when we look at the authors because it is largely people who have worked for Trump, have advised him, and are likely to have influential roles coming forward. There’s also some ties between JD Vance and the folks at [The] Heritage [Foundation] and Project 2025 that really solidifies the notion that this is something that could be very influential in dictating what our country would look like under a Trump-Vance presidency. And I appreciate Stephanie’s work in clarifying what it says.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a really good story. Well, my extra credit this week is a study in JAMA Internal Medicine. It’s from the Cambridge [Health] Alliance at Harvard and is called “Health, Access to Care, and Financial Barriers to Care Among People Incarcerated in US Prisons.” And it looks at something that I didn’t even know existed: copays required in prisons for prison inmates in order to obtain medical care. The study found, not surprisingly, that copays can be equal to more than a week’s wage for some inmates, who often make just pennies an hour for the work that they do behind bars. And that many inmates end up going without needed care because they can’t afford said copays.

It’s pretty eye-opening and I hope it gets some attention. OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions; we’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me at X, I’m @jrovner. Sandhya?

Raman: @SandhyaWrites.

Rovner: Shefali?

Luthra: @shefalil.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Brotes de covid-19, paperas y varicela. Agua contaminada, comida con moho y conductos de aire que despiden polvo negro.

Estas amenazas a la salud se han documentado dentro de las instalaciones de detención de inmigrantes administradas de manera privada en California a través de demandas, auditorías federales y estatales, y quejas presentadas por los mismos detenidos.

Pero los oficiales de salud pública locales que inspeccionan de manera rutinaria las cárceles del condado y las prisiones estatales dicen que no tienen autoridad bajo la ley estatal para inspeccionar los centros de detención operados por compañías privadas, incluidos los seis centros federales de inmigración en California.

La senadora estatal María Elena Durazo (demócrata de Los Ángeles) quiere zanjar esa laguna legal con una legislación que permitiría a los oficiales de salud de los condados realizar inspecciones en las instalaciones si lo considerasen necesario.

Durazo dijo que muchos detenidos viven en condiciones infrahumanas, y que las enfermedades contagiosas que se propagan en estas instalaciones podrían representar un riesgo para las comunidades circundantes.

“Desafortunadamente, a nuestros detenidos se los trata como si no fueran seres humanos”, dijo. “No queremos excusas. Queremos que los funcionarios estatales y de  salud pública entren siempre que fuera necesario”.

No está claro cuánta autoridad tendrían los oficiales de salud locales para implementar cambios, pero expertos en salud pública dicen que podrían actuar como observadores independientes para documentar violaciones que de otro modo el público no conocería.

El Senado estatal aprobó el proyecto de ley, SB 1132, por unanimidad a finales de mayo. Ahora está bajo consideración en la Asamblea estatal.

La inmigración está regulada por el gobierno federal. GEO Group, el contratista privado de prisiones más grande del país, opera los centros federales de California, ubicados en cuatro condados. En conjunto, pueden albergar hasta 6,500 personas en espera de deportación o audiencias de inmigración.

Durante su campaña en 2020, el presidente Joe Biden prometió poner fin a la detención de inmigrantes con fines de lucro. Pero más del 90% de las aproximadamente 30,000 personas detenidas por la agencia de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas de Estados Unidos (ICE) en un día cualquiera permanecen en instalaciones privadas, según un análisis de 2023 de la Unión Americana de Libertades Civiles.

Miembros del Congreso en ambas cámaras han presentado legislaciones para eliminar gradualmente los centros de detención privados, mientras que otros legisladores, incluidos al menos dos en julio, han pedido investigaciones sobre la atención médica y de salud mental deficientes, y las muertes.

En 2023, legisladores en el estado de Washington aprobaron una ley para imponer supervisión estatal de las instalaciones de detención privadas, pero el GEO Group demandó, y la medida está atascada en los tribunales. Los legisladores de California han intentado repetidamente regular estas instalaciones, con resultados mixtos.

En 2019, el gobernador de California, el demócrata Gavin Newsom, firmó una medida que prohíbe que las prisiones y centros de detención privados operen en California. Pero luego un tribunal federal declaró la ley inconstitucional en lo que respecta a los centros de detención de inmigrantes, diciendo que interfería con las funciones federales.

En 2021, los legisladores estatales aprobaron un proyecto de ley que exige que los centros de detención privados cumplan con las órdenes de salud pública estatales y locales, y las regulaciones de seguridad y salud de los trabajadores.

Esa medida se adoptó en el apogeo de la pandemia de covid-19, cuando el virus arrasaba con las instalaciones de detención donde las personas estaban hacinadas en dormitorios sin, o con poca, protección contra los virus transmitidos por aire.

Por ejemplo, en el Centro de Detención de Otay Mesa, en San Diego, un brote al comienzo de la pandemia infectó a más de 300 miembros del personal y a detenidos.

La Asociación de Oficiales de Salud de California, que representa a los oficiales de salud pública de los 61 departamentos de salud locales del estado, apoya la legislación de Durazo.

“Estas investigaciones desempeñan un papel fundamental en la identificación y abordaje de preocupaciones de salud e higiene dentro de estas instalaciones, mitigando así los riesgos para los detenidos, el personal y las comunidades circundantes”, indica una carta de Kat DeBurgh, directora ejecutiva de la asociación.

Bajo la medida, los oficiales de salud pública determinarían si las instalaciones están cumpliendo con las reglas ambientales, como garantizar una ventilación adecuada, y ofrecer atención básica de salud mental y física, tratamiento de emergencia y alimentos preparados de manera segura.

A diferencia de las instalaciones correccionales públicas, que los oficiales de salud locales inspeccionan cada año, los centros de detención privados serían inspeccionados a necesidad, según lo determine el oficial de salud.

Christopher Ferreira, vocero de GEO Group, y Richard Beam, vocero de ICE, se negaron a comentar sobre la medida.

Georges Benjamin, director ejecutivo de la Asociación Americana de Salud Pública, dijo que los oficiales de salud pública están bien posicionados para inspeccionar estas instalaciones porque entienden cómo hacer que los espacios confinados sean más seguros para grandes poblaciones.

Aunque probablemente no puedan obligar a los centros de detención a cumplir con sus recomendaciones, sus informes podrían proporcionar información valiosa para los funcionarios públicos, abogados y otros que quieran explorar opciones como litigar, dijo. “Cuando el sistema no funciona, los tribunales pueden desempeñar un papel muy importante”, agregó Benjamin.

El sistema federal que monitorea la atención médica y la transmisión de enfermedades contagiosas dentro de los centros de detención de inmigrantes está roto, dijo Annette Dekker, profesora clínica asistente de medicina de emergencia en UCLA, que estudia la atención médica en estas instalaciones.

Tradicionalmente, personal del ICE realiza las inspecciones de los centros de detención y, hasta 2022, también un auditor privado.

En un artículo publicado en junio, Dekker y otros investigadores mostraron que los funcionarios de inmigración y el auditor realizaban inspecciones con poca frecuencia —al menos una vez cada tres años— y proporcionaban poca información pública sobre las deficiencias y cómo se abordaban.

“Hay mucho daño que está ocurriendo en los centros de detención que no podemos documentar”, dijo Dekker.

ICE y el GEO Group han sido objeto de demandas y cientos de quejas que alegan condiciones deficientes dentro de las instalaciones de California desde que comenzó la pandemia. Algunas de estas demandas están pendientes, pero una parte significativa de las quejas ha sido desestimada, según una base de datos mantenida por la Unión Americana de Libertades Civiles.

Las demandas más recientes de los detenidos alegan condiciones de hacinamiento e insalubridad, negación de atención médica y de salud mental adecuadas, negligencia médica y muerte por suicidio.

La División de Seguridad y Salud Ocupacional de California multó al GEO Group con unos $100,000 en 2022 por no mantener procedimientos escritos para reducir la exposición a covid. El GEO Group ha impugnado la multa.

“He experimentado condiciones de vida realmente inhumanas”, dijo Dilmer Lovos, de 28 años, a KFF Health News por teléfono desde el centro de detención de inmigración Golden State Annex en McFarland, en el condado de Kern. Lovos ha estado detenido allí desde enero mientras espera una audiencia de inmigración.

Lovos, quien nació en El Salvador y usa los pronombres ellos/ellas, ha sido residente permanente legal durante 15 años y fue detenido por oficiales de inmigración mientras estaba en libertad condicional.

A principios de julio, Lovos y otros 58 detenidos del Golden State Annex y el Centro de Procesamiento de ICE Mesa Verde, en Bakersfield, comenzaron una huelga de hambre y laboral exigiendo el fin de las malas condiciones de vida, el confinamiento solitario y los servicios médicos y de salud mental inadecuados.

Lovos describió una habitación abarrotada, filtros de aire obstruidos, ratones y cucarachas correteando en la cocina, agua goteando del techo y detenidos con síntomas parecidos a los de la gripe que no podían acceder a medicamentos ni a una prueba de covid cuando lo pedían.

Los protocolos del ICE requieren pruebas a los detenidos con síntomas al ingresar a las instalaciones sin hospitalizaciones ni muertes por covid en la semana anterior. En las instalaciones con dos o más hospitalizaciones o muertes en la semana anterior, se evalúa a todos los detenidos durante el proceso de admisión. Después de eso, depende de los proveedores médicos de cada instalación decidir cuándo es necesaria una prueba.

Después que Lovos presentara una queja ante el GEO Group en junio, alegando negligencia médica y de salud mental, dijeron que los pusieron en confinamiento solitario durante 20 días sin un inodoro que funcionara correctamente. “Olía mi orina y heces porque no podía tirar de la cadena”.

El vocero Ferreira se negó a abordar las acusaciones de Lovos pero dijo por correo electrónico que los detenidos reciben “acceso las 24 horas del día a atención médica”, incluidos médicos, dentistas, psicólogos y derivaciones a especialistas externos.

“GEO rechaza las acusaciones infundadas que se han hecho con respecto al acceso a los servicios de salud en los Centros de Procesamiento del ICE contratados por GEO”, dijo.

Una inspección sorpresa de funcionarios federales de inmigración en abril de 2023 encontró que los empleados de Golden State Annex no respondieron dentro de las 24 horas a las quejas médicas, lo que, según el informe, podría afectar negativamente la salud de los detenidos, y no archivaron de manera adecuada sus registros médicos.

Lovos dijo que nadie ha abordado sus preocupaciones y que las condiciones solo han empeorado.

“Por favor, vengan a revisar estos lugares”, dijo Lovos en una súplica a los oficiales de salud locales.

Esta historia fue producida por KFF Health News, una redacción nacional que produce periodismo en profundidad sobre temas de salud y es uno de los principales programas operativos de KFF, la fuente independiente de investigación de políticas de salud, encuestas y periodismo. KFF Health News edita California Healthline, un servicio editorialmente independiente de la California Health Care Foundation.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

As Vice President Kamala Harris appears poised to become the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, health policy in general and reproductive health issues in particular are likely to have a higher profile. Harris has long been the Biden administration’s point person on abortion rights and reproductive health and was active on other health issues while serving as California’s attorney general.

Meanwhile, Congress is back for a brief session between presidential conventions, but efforts in the GOP-led House to pass the annual spending bills, due by Oct. 1, have run into the usual roadblocks over abortion-related issues.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Stephanie Armour of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Stephanie Armour
KFF Health News

@StephArmour1

Read Stephanie's stories.

Rachel Cohrs Zhang
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• President Joe Biden’s decision to drop out of the presidential race has turned attention to his likely successor on the Democratic ticket, Vice President Kamala Harris. At this late hour in the campaign, she is expected to adopt Biden’s health policies, though many anticipate she’ll take a firmer stance on restoring Roe v. Wade. And while abortion rights supporters are enthusiastic about Harris’ candidacy, opponents are eager to frame her views as extreme.
• As he transitions from incumbent candidate to outgoing president, Biden is working to frame his legacy, including on health policy. The president has expressed pride that his signature domestic achievement, the Inflation Reduction Act, took on the pharmaceutical industry, including by forcing the makers of the most expensive drugs into negotiations with Medicare. Yet, as with the Affordable Care Act’s delayed implementation and results, most Americans have yet to see the IRA’s potential effect on drug prices.
• Lawmakers continue to be hung up on federal government spending, leaving appropriations work undone as they prepare to leave for summer recess. Fights over abortion are, once again, gumming up the works.
• In abortion news, Iowa’s six-week limit is scheduled to take effect next week, causing rippling problems of abortion access throughout the region. In Louisiana, which added the two drugs used in medication abortions to its list of controlled substances, doctors are having difficulty using the pills for other indications. And doctors who oppose abortion are pushing higher-risk procedures, like cesarean sections, in lieu of pregnancy termination when the mother’s life is in danger — as states with strict bans, like Texas and Louisiana, are reporting a rise in the use of surgeries, including hysterectomies, to end pregnancies.
• The Government Accountability Office reports that many states incorrectly removed hundreds of thousands of eligible people from the Medicaid rolls during the “unwinding” of the covid-19 public health emergency’s coverage protections. The Biden administration has been reluctant to call out those states publicly in an attempt to keep the process as apolitical as possible.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Anthony Wright, the new executive director of the consumer health advocacy group Families USA. Wright spent the past two decades in California, working with, among others, now-Vice President Kamala Harris on various health issues.

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

Julie Rovner: NPR’s “A Study Finds That Dogs Can Smell Your Stress — And Make Decisions Accordingly,” by Rachel Treisman.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Stat’s “A Pricey Gilead HIV Drug Could Be Made for Dramatically Less Than the Company Charges,” by Ed Silverman, and Politico’s “Federal HIV Program Set To Wind Down,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein and David Lim. 

Stephanie Armour: Vox’s “Free Medical School Won’t Solve the Doctor Shortage,” by Dylan Scott.  

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Stat’s “How UnitedHealth Harnesses Its Physician Empire To Squeeze Profits out of Patients,” by Bob Herman, Tara Bannow, Casey Ross, and Lizzy Lawrence. 

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• States Newsroom’s “Anti-Abortion Researchers Back Riskier Procedures When Pregnancy Termination Is Needed, Experts Say,” by Sofia Resnick.
• KFF Health News’ “Louisiana Reclassifies Drugs Used in Abortions as Controlled Dangerous Substances,” by Rosemary Westwood, WWNO.
• The New York Times’ “Biden and Georgia Are Waging a Fight Over Medicaid and the Future of Obamacare,” by Noah Weiland.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Harris in the Spotlight

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: ‘Harris in the Spotlight’Episode Number: 357Published: July 25, 2024

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

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And we welcome back to the podcast one of our original panelists, Stephanie Armour, who I am pleased to say has now officially joined us here at KFF Health News. Stephanie, so great to have you back.

Stephanie Armour: Great to be back.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we will have my interview with Anthony Wright, the new executive director of the consumer health advocacy group Families USA. Anthony previously spent two decades working on health issues in California so he’s pretty familiar with the health work of the current vice president and soon-to-be Democratic presidential nominee, Kamala Harris, and he’ll share some of that knowledge with us. But first, this week’s news.

So it’s safe to say a lot has changed since the last time we met. In fact, it may be fair to say that just about everything has changed. President Joe Biden announced he would not seek reelection after all, he endorsed his vice president, Kamala Harris, and she proceeded to all but lock up the nomination in less than 48 hours. Obviously, this will be a huge deal for the fight over abortion and reproductive health care, which we will get to in a moment. But how is this going to impact health care, in general, as a campaign issue?

Ollstein: Yeah, it’s interesting because Kamala Harris has been a public figure for a while and has held a bunch of different offices, and so we can glean some clues as to where she is on various health care issues. But she’s been a bit hard to pin down. And when my colleagues and I were talking to a lot of folks throughout the health care industry over the past week, there were a lot of question marks on their end, so we know a few things. We know that she used the powers of the AG [attorney general] office to go after monopolies and consolidation and anticompetitive practices in California.

She did that in the insurance space, in the provider space, in the drug space, and so people are expecting that she would be maybe more aggressive on that front. We know that she did co-sponsor [Sen. Bernie Sanders’] “Medicare for All” bill, but then she also introduced her own, arguably more moderate, one that preserved private health insurance. And then, of course, abortion rights. She’s been very vocal on that front, but since becoming the presumptive nominee, she hasn’t really laid out what, if anything, she would do differently than Joe Biden. So like I said, a lot of question marks.

Rovner: Stephanie, you led our coverage of Harris’ health record. What did you learn?

Armour: Well, I think a number of the people that I’ve talked with really expect that she’ll be a standard-bearer to what Biden has already done, and I think that’s probably true. I don’t think she’s going to go back stumping for Medicare for All right now, for example. What I did find really interesting is, yes, she’s very much made abortion and reproductive rights a cornerstone of her vice presidency and, I assume, will be of her campaign. But based on where abortion is polling right now, a number of the strategists I spoke to said she really needs to do something pretty major on it in order to get a real uptick in terms of galvanizing voters, just because economy and immigration are so high. They’re saying that she really needs to do something like say that she’ll bring back legislation to restore Roe v. Wade, for example, to really make a difference. So I think it’ll be interesting to see how much that can really motivate voters when there’s so much competing for interest right now.

Cohrs Zhang: Oh, there is one other issue that I wanted to bring up. And I think especially from her time in the Senate, she didn’t sit on health care committees, but she did go out of her way to take ownership over concerns about maternal mortality. She was lead Senate sponsor of the Momnibus Act, which included a whole slew of different policies and programs that could help support mothers, especially Black mothers. And I think she has continued that interest in the White House and really championed health equity, which does, again, just draw a very stark contrast. So we haven’t seen a lot of passion or interest in the traditional health policy sense from her outside of abortion, but that is one issue she really has owned.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, it has not been part of her quote-unquote “portfolio” as vice president, anything except, as I mentioned, reproductive rights, which will obviously be the biggest change from Biden to Harris. The president, as we all know, does not even like to say the word “abortion.” She, on the other hand, has been all over the issue since well before Roe got overturned and obviously particularly since then. Alice, how are advocates on both sides of this issue reacting to this switch at the top of the ticket?

Ollstein: Yeah, honestly, it’s been this interesting convergence because the pro-abortion-rights side is really jazzed. They’ve basically all rushed to endorse her and talk about how they’ve been working with her for years and really know her and trust her, and they believe she’ll be more aggressive than Biden was. But you also have the anti-abortion side being excited to have her as the villain, basically. They’ve had a hard time portraying Biden as extreme on this issue and they think they’ll have an easier time portraying Kamala Harris as extreme on abortion rights. One other thing from her record and background is her fight with the conservatives who recorded sting videos at Planned Parenthood that the anti-abortion movement still brings that up a lot. So yeah, it’ll be really interesting to see for which side this really lights a fire more because we’re hearing claims from both that it will fuel them.

Rovner: And, actually, I think it will actually fuel both sides of this. I would think that the abortion-rights groups were very — I mean everybody was pretty quick to endorse her — but the abortion-rights groups were right there right away, as were the anti-abortion groups saying she is extreme on abortion, which in some ways will fuel the abortion-right side. It’s like, “Oh good. The more the antis don’t like her, the stronger that means she is for us.” I mean, I literally could see this fueling both sides of this issue and …

Armour: Whereas you see Republicans backing away increasingly from abortion like the RNC [Republican National Committee] platform. And so it’s turning out to be still very much a hot-button issue and difficult issue for Republicans.

Rovner: So they say that the vice presidency is not very good for much, and I definitely agree with that. I mean, everybody always says, “The vice president hasn’t done anything.” Because the vice president doesn’t really have a job to do anything. Often the only time the vice president is on TV is when he or she sits behind the president at the State of the Union. But I feel like, in Harris’ case, it’s made her a much more confident and natural and comfortable campaigner. I watched her a lot when she was running for president in 2019 and 2020, and she was, to be kind, a little bit awkward; I mean she was just not one of those natural, had-that-rapport with a crowd, and I feel like that has changed a lot having watched her crisscross the country, particularly on reproductive health. Am I the only one that feels that way? I feel like people are going to see a very different vice president than they think they saw, while she was doing her due diligence as vice president.

Ollstein: Definitely, and I’ve found it interesting that it’s only been a few days since all of this went down, but I have noticed that while she has brought up abortion rights in pretty much every speech and appearance she’s given, she has not given specifics. She has not indicated if she is in the Biden camp of let’s restore Roe v. Wade, or with a lot of the rest of the movement that says Roe was never good enough, we need to aim for something much more expansive. So we didn’t know where she is on that. I mean, largely she’s been just saying, “Oh, I will stop Donald Trump from banning abortion nationally.” And using him as the foil and pledging to stop him. And so we haven’t really seen her make an affirmative case of what she would do on this front.

Rovner: Well, I think that would probably be as difficult for her as it is for the Republicans to try and figure out how far they want to go banning. Because yeah, as you mentioned, I mean, there’s a lot of the abortion-rights movement that think that restoring Roe, even if they could, is not enough because obviously under Roe, many, many types of restrictions were allowed and were in place. That is obviously not where the abortion-rights side wants to end up. And on the other side, as we’ve talked about ad nauseum, do anti-abortion forces, are they OK with state-by-state bans? Do they want a national ban? If so, what would it look like? So that will obviously continue.

Now that we have, relatively, mostly settled who’s going to be at the top of the ticket, we are once again, back to the “Who will be the VP pick?” sweepstakes. Now that we’ve finished the Republican side, we’re back to the Democratic side of the short list. We’ve all been hearing Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. They all have significant health records, but mostly on different issues. Who do you think of the people who are being mentioned would make the biggest splash on the health care scene?

Ollstein: I’ve been hearing a lot of people talk about Gov. Beshear’s record on Medicaid expansion and pushing back against work requirements, and also opposing legislation to restrict trans care. And so there’s definitely a lot there. Really, a lot of them have something there, but I’ve been hearing the most about him.

Rovner: And Mark Kelly, of course, is married to Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot at a campaign event and is now a leading voice in the gun control movement. So they all seem to have slightly different major health issues. Roy Cooper in North Carolina got North Carolina to expand Medicaid, which was a very, very, very big deal with a very, very, very Republican legislature. I’m not going to ask anybody to guess who it’s going to be because I can’t imagine that any of us have any major insight into this. Whoever it turns out to be, and I imagine we’ll know in the next week or two, we will go in and examine their health care record. One of the advantages that Vice President Harris will have on the campaign trail is she gets to campaign on the Biden administration’s record, which is fairly accomplished on the health care front without the drag of being in her 80s. Somebody remind us of all the health policies the Biden administration has gotten done. Start with the Inflation Reduction Act.

Cohrs Zhang: The name of the legislation is very general, but I think President Biden, in his goodbye speech last night, did mention the drug pricing portion of that bill. He’s described it as beating Big Pharma. And I think that’s definitely something that he talked about in his State of the Union, that he wanted to expand some of those pricing mechanisms to more people, not just people in Medicare, but people in commercial health plans, too. So I think that’s been something that he has really felt passionate about and Vice President Harris now could certainly use on the campaign trail. It’s a really popular issue and, again, not a huge policy departure, but, certainly, there’s more work to be done there on Democrats’ side.

Armour: And also I think the ACA [Affordable Care Act] extensions in terms of how many more people have been eligible for coverage is something that will definitely be part of Biden’s legacy as well. And the record-low uninsurance that we saw is something I bet that will be remembered, too.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean I’ve been personally surprised at some of the things that he’s gotten done in a Congress with virtually minuscule majority. I mean, one vote in the Senate and, when the Democrats were controlling the House, it was, what, four votes in the House. That takes, I think, a certain kind of legislator to get things passed. I know people walk around and say, “Oh, the Biden administration hasn’t done anything.” And you want to pull your hair out because that’s all we’ve spent the last six years talking about, things that have actually gotten done and not gotten done.

Cohrs Zhang: Right. Well, I mean doing things and communicating well about doing things are different issues, and I think that’s going to be Vice President Harris’ challenge over the next few months.

Rovner: Yeah, and so we’ve seen, and I think the Biden administration has prevented a lot of things from happening, which is always very hard to campaign on. It’s like, “Well, if we hadn’t done this, then this might’ve happened.” I mean, I think that’s true about the pandemic. Things could have gone much, much worse and didn’t and that’s tricky to say, “Hey, we prevented things from getting even more terrible than they were.”

Ollstein: And on the drug pricing front, I mean it just always reminds me of the Affordable Care Act where the payoff is years down the road, and so selling it to voters in the moment when they’re not feeling the effects yet is really hard. So it makes sense that people aren’t aware that they got this major legal change that’s been decades in the making over the finish line because the drugs aren’t cheaper yet for a lot of people.

Rovner: That’s true. And the caps on spending haven’t really kicked in yet. It is a lot like the Affordable Care Act, which took four years from the time of passage to the time it was fully implemented.

Well, in other news, and there is some other news, Congress is back after a break for the Republican [National] Convention, although they’re about to leave again. At the top of the House’s list was passing the spending bills that they didn’t manage to pass last year. So how’s that all going, Rachel?

Cohrs Zhang: I think they’ve just thrown in the towel this week, given up a bit. I think there’s been an attitude of just apathy on the Hill and especially on health care issues that the sense has been, “We’ll return to this in December when we all have a little bit more information about the dynamics going to the lame-duck session.” And I think that clearly has bled over into any will that remains to pass appropriations bills before August recess. I think they’re ready to get out there, ready to be on the campaign trail and put this on the back burner.

Rovner: Yeah, and in an election year, you basically have the six months leading up to the first convention and then almost nothing until they come back after the election. They were going gangbusters on some of these spending bills. They were getting them out of committee even though they were obviously not in the kind of shape that they were going to become law. We talked at some length about all of the riders and all of the funding cuts that the Republicans have put in some of these bills, but they couldn’t even get them through the floor. I mean, Alice we’re hung up on abortion, again!

Ollstein: Oh, as always. And it’s the exact same policy fights as last time. The fight’s going to happen in the ag[riculture] bill, around FDA [Food and Drug Administration] regulation of abortion pills. There’s going to be fights about the provisions helping veterans and active-duty service members access abortion, knowing that these appropriations bills are the only real legislation that has any chance of going anywhere. People are putting all of their policy priorities in as riders. And last round of this, there were anti-abortion provisions tacked onto basically every single spending bill, and almost all of them got stripped out in the end and did not become law. Obviously, they kept long-standing things like the Hyde Amendment, but they didn’t add the new restrictions Republicans wanted to add. That is likely to happen again. We’ll see. This could drag past the election potentially. So the dynamics, depending on the outcome of the election, could be really different than they are today.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, I guess the House is going out and they won’t be back until September. It used to be there would be an August recess in an election year, and they would come back in September, and they would actually work until the beginning or even the middle of October. And even that seems to have gone away. Now, once they’re gone for the quote-unquote “August recess,” it’s like, bye-bye getting much of anything done.

Well, there’s also some more news on the abortion front: The on-again off-again, on-again, off-again, six-week abortion ban in Iowa appears to be on again, possibly to start as soon as next week. Alice, I think we’ve mentioned this before, but this is going to affect a lot more than just people in Iowa.

Ollstein: Yeah, definitely. I mean, we’re seeing a big erosion of access across the Midwest Great Plains, like that whole area, that whole swath, the Dakotas, et cetera. And there’s already a lot of pressure on Illinois as the destination and clinics there are already overwhelmed with folks coming in from all over. And so this will add to that. As we’ve seen when this has happened in other states, wait times can go up, shortages of providers needed to care for everyone. Telemedicine does relieve some of that, and there are these groups that mail abortion pills into any state regardless of restrictions. But not everyone is comfortable doing that or knows how to do that or wants to do that or can afford to do that. And so this is said to have a big impact, and we’ll have to see what happens.

Rovner: There were two other pieces about abortion that caught my eye this week, and they’re both about things that we’ve talked about before. One is the push by anti-abortion doctors to change medical practice. In Louisiana, the abortion drugs mifepristone and misoprostol, both of which are used for many more things than just abortion, are now on the state’s list of controlled substances. And then from States Newsroom, there’s a piece about how anti-abortion OB-GYNs are trying to get medically necessary abortions that happen later in pregnancy, switched instead to C-sections or having the pregnant person go through and induce labor and delivery. I’ve been covering this issue, as I like to say, for nearly 40 years. This is the most intense effort I’ve ever seen from inside the medical profession to actually change how medicine is practiced in terms of what’s considered the standard of care, both for things like — not even so much mifepristone the abortion pill, but misoprostol, which is used for a lot of things other than abortion.

Armour: Was it initially an ulcer medication?

Rovner: Yes, yes, misoprostol.

Armour: That’s what I thought. Yeah.

Rovner: Cytotec. It was for a long time one of the go-to ulcer medicine. And in fact, the only reason it stopped becoming the go-to ulcer medicine because, if you were pregnant and wanted to be, it could help end your pregnancy. It is known to have that as a side effect, but yes, it’s an ulcer medication.

Armour: Yeah, this is the first I had seen anywhere, and I could be wrong, but of a real push to try and change the management of late-term medical miscarriages to how it would actually be carried out, which was just very interesting and to see what they were recommending instead.

Rovner: ACOG, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, has put out guidelines — forever, that’s what they do — about how to handle pregnancy problems later in pregnancy. Generally using the least invasive procedure is considered the safest and, therefore, best for the patient. And that’s not necessarily having a C-section, which is major surgery, or going through labor and delivery. People forget that it’s really dangerous to be pregnant. I mean, it’s amazing that we have all of these kids and happy parents because if you go back and look in history, a lot of women used to die in childbirth. They still do. It’s obviously not as bad as it used to be, but it is not everything-goes-fine-99%-of-the-time thing that I think a lot of people think it is.

Armour: That’s right. Yeah.

Rovner: All right, well, meanwhile, before we bid Congress goodbye for the rest of the summer, the House Oversight Committee, which is usually as partisan a place as there is in this Congress, held a hearing this week on PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers] and there seems to be pretty bipartisan support that something needs to be done. Rachel, I keep asking this question: It seems that just about everybody on Capitol Hill wants to do something to rein in PBM drug price abuse, and yet no one ever does. So are we getting closer yet?

Cohrs Zhang: We are getting closer, I think, as we approach December. My understanding was that lawmakers were pretty close on a deal on PBMs back in March. But I think it was just a symptom of “Appropriations Bill Has to Move.” They want it to be clean. If they add one committee’s extra stuff, they have to let other committees add extra stuff, too, and it gets too complicated on deadline. But it’s wild to me that we’re still seeing new PBM reform bills at this point. But there’s just a huge, huge pile of bills at this point, everyone wants their name on it. And so I really do believe that we’re going to see something in December. I think the big question is how far some of these reforms will reach: whether they’ll be limited to the Medicare program or whether some of these will start to touch private insurance as well. I think that’s what the larger industry is waiting to see. But I think there’s a lot of appetite. I mean with congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers retiring, she’s led a package on this issue …

Rovner: She’s chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which obviously has the main jurisdiction over this in the House.

Cohrs Zhang: Right. So if we’re thinking about legacy, getting some of these things across the finish line, it does depend how dynamics change in the lame duck. But I think there is a very good chance that we’re going to see some sort of action here.

Rovner: Congressman Jamie Raskin, at that hearing, had maybe my favorite line ever about PBMs, which is, he said, “The more I hear about this, the less I understand it.” It’s like you could put that on a T-shirt.

Ollstein: That’s great. Yeah.

Cohrs Zhang: Yes.

Rovner: The PBM debate in one sentence. All right. Finally, this week we have some Medicaid news, a new report from the GAO [Government Accountability Office] finds pretty much what we already knew: that states have been wrongly kicking eligible people off of their Medicaid coverage as they were, quote, “unwinding from the public health emergency.” According to the report, more than 400,000 people lost coverage because the state looked at the household’s eligibility instead of individual eligibility. Even though Medicaid income thresholds are much higher for many people, like children and pregnant women. So if the household wasn’t eligible, possibly, even probably, the children still were. It’s a pretty scathing report. Is anybody going to do anything about it? I mean, the GAO’s recommendation was that the administration act a little more strongly and the administration says, “We already are.”

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, I actually had the chance to talk with a White House official about this dynamic, and just, I think there’s only so far that they’re willing to go, and I think might talk about, in a while. I think there’s been clashes between the Biden administration and conservative states, especially on Medicaid programs, and there’s really only so much influence they can exert. And I think without provoking an all-out war, I’m personally expecting them to get much more aggressive in the last six months of their administration, if they weren’t going to do it before, when they really could have potentially made a difference and really made it a calling card in some of these states. So I’m not expecting much change from the White House on this issue.

Rovner: Yeah, I remember the administration was so sensitive about this that when we were first learning about how states were cutting people off who they shouldn’t have been, the administration said, “We’re working with the states.” And we all said, “Which states?” And they said, “We’re not going to tell you.” I mean, that’s literally how sensitive it was. They would not give us the list of the states who they said were incorrectly knocking people off the roll. So yeah, clearly this has been politically sensitive for the administration, but I’m …

Armour: And the Medicaid directors, too. They really pushed back, especially initially, about not wanting it to be too adversarial. I think the administration really took that to heart. Whether that was the right call or not remains to be seen, but there was a lot of tension around that from the get-go.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, also this week, The New York Times has a deep dive into the one remaining Medicaid work requirement in the country, Georgia’s Pathways to Coverage. In case you don’t remember, this was the program that Georgia said would enroll up to 100,000 people, except, so far it’s only managed to sign up about 4,500. It feels relevant again though, because the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which is now all over the campaign trail, would go even further than previous Republican efforts to rein in Medicaid by possibly imposing lifetime caps on coverage. Cutting Medicaid didn’t go very well in 2017 when the Republicans tried to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. What makes them think an even bigger cutback would be more popular now?

Armour: Well, the study’s authors say to me that if they’re not cutting Medicaid, which goes back to the original debate back when they were talking about …

Rovner: The Project 2025 authors.

Armour: Yes, authors. Right. And that goes back to the original debate of how do you define it? A little bit of sleight of hand. And the other thing is that would definitely bring back the Medicaid work requirements and some premiums for some, which also turned out not to be super-popular as well. So it does dive right into an issue. But it’s also an issue that conservatives have been, boy, working on for years and years now to try and get this accomplished.

Rovner: Oh yeah, block-granting Medicaid goes back decades.

Armour: Exactly. Yeah.

Rovner: And there’ve been various ways to do it. And then work requirements, obviously Alice, you were the queen of our work requirement coverage in Arkansas because they put in a work requirement and it didn’t go well. Remind us.

Ollstein: Yeah. So this is what a lot of experts and advocates predicted, which is that we know from years of data that pretty much everybody on Medicaid who can work is already working and those who aren’t working are not working because they are a student or they have to care for a relative or they have a disability or there are all these reasons. And so when these work requirements actually went into effect, just a lot of people who should have been eligible fell through the cracks. It was hard to navigate the bureaucracy of it all. And so even people who were working struggled to prove it and to get their benefits. And so people really point to that as a cautionary tale for other states. But this is something conservatives really believe in ideologically, and so I don’t expect it to be going away anytime soon.

Rovner: To swing back to where we started. I imagine we will see more talk about health care on the presidential campaign trail as we go forward.

All right, well that’s as much news for this week as we can fit in. Now we will play my interview with Families USA’s Anthony Wright, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits.

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Anthony Wright, the brand-new executive director of Families USA, one of the nation’s leading consumer health advocacy groups. And a big part of why we even have the ACA. Anthony is no stranger to health care battles. He spent more than 20 years heading up the group Health Access California, where he worked on a variety of health issues, large and small, and encountered someone who is suddenly very much in the news: Vice President Kamala Harris. Anthony Wright, welcome to “What the Health?”

Anthony Wright: Thank you so much for having me. I’m a longtime listener, but first-time caller.

Rovner: Awesome. So, for those who are not familiar with Families USA, tell us about the group and tell us what your immediate priorities are.

Wright: So, Families USA has been a longtime voice for health care consumers in Congress, at the administration, working nationally for the goal of quality, affordable, equitable health care for all Americans. I’m pleased to take on that legacy and to try to uplift those goals. I’m also particularly interested in continuing to uplift and amplify the voices of patients in the public in health policy debates. It’s opaque to try to figure out how normal people engage in the federal health policy discussions so that health reforms actually matter to them. I would like families to do more to provide pathways so that they have an effective voice in those policy discussion tables. There’s so many policy debates where it’s the fight between various parts of the industry, when, in fact, the point of the health care system is patients, is the public, and they should be at the center of these discussions.

Rovner: Yes, and I’m embarrassed to admit that we spend an enormous amount of time talking about the players in the health care debate that are not patients. They are basically the people who stand to make money from it. What’s your biggest priority for this year and next?

Wright: Yeah, I want to take some of the lessons that I’ve learned over the 22 years of working in California, where we had the biggest drop of the uninsured rate of all 50 states, mostly working to implement and improve the Affordable Care Act. And I recognize that some of those lessons will have to be adopted and changed for the different context of [Washington,] D.C., or the 49 other states. But there is work that we can do, and we should do, moving forward. There are things on the plate right now. For example, in the next year, the additional affordability assistance that people have in the exchanges is set to expire. And so we can either have a system where everybody has a guarantee that their premiums are capped at 8.5% of their income or less on a sliding scale, or we can let those enhanced tax credits expire and to have premiums go up by hundreds, or for many people, thousands of dollars literally in the next year or so.

So that’s a very important thing that will be on the ballot this fall, along with a number of other issues and we want to highlight that. But frankly, I’m also interested in the work around expanding coverage, including in those 10 states that haven’t expanded Medicaid yet. In California, we’ve done a lot of work on health equity dealing with racial and ethnic disparities and just meeting the specific needs of specific communities. That was an imperative in California with the diversity and the size and scale of that state. But there’s more we can do both in California, but nationally, with regard to that. And then I think there’s more to work on costs with regard to just how darn expensive health care is and how do we fix the market failures that lead to, not just high, but irrational and inflated health prices.

Rovner: So obviously a big part of what you will or won’t be able to do next year depends on who occupies the White House and who controls Congress. You’re from California and so is Vice President Harris. Tell us about her record on health care.

Wright: Yeah, she actually has a significant record, mostly from her time as attorney general of California. She didn’t have much of a portfolio as district attorney, but when she did become the attorney general — attorney generals have choices about where they focus their time and she made a point to focus more on health care and start an evolution of the attorney general being more involved in health care issues — on issues like reviewing mergers of hospitals and putting conditions to make sure that emergency rooms stayed open, that hospitals continued their commitments to charity care. She worked on broader issues of consolidation, for example, joining the [U.S.] Justice Department in opposing the merger of Anthem and Cigna.

And she took on, whether it’s the insurers or the drug companies or the hospital chains, on issues of pricing and anticompetitive practices, whether it was Bayer and Cipro and other drug companies with regard to pay-for-delay practices, basically schemes to keep the price of drugs inflated. Or on the issue of high hospital prices. She began the investigations that led to a landmark Sutter settlement where that hospital chain paid $575 million in fines, but also agreed to a series of conditions with regard to no longer engaging in anticompetitive contracting practices. And that kind of work is something that we worked on with her, and I think is really relevant to the moment we’re in now where we really do see that consolidation is one of the major drivers of why health care prices are so high. And that kind of experience that she could talk about as she talks about health care costs broadly, medical debt, and some of the issues that are on the campaign trail today.

Rovner: So, obviously, with the exception of reproductive health, health in general has not been a big part of the campaign this year. Do you think it’s going to get bigger now that Harris is at the head of the ticket?

Wright: One of the things that I’m happy with is that, after several weeks where the conversation has much been about the campaign processes, we can maybe focus back on policy and the very real issues that are at stake. Our health care is on the ballot, whether it is reproductive health and abortion care, but also there’s a very easy leap to also talk about the threats, not just to reproductive health, but also to the Affordable Care Act, to Medicaid, to Medicare. There’s very different visions and records of the last two administrations with regard to the Affordable Care Act, whether to repeal it or build upon it, on Medicaid and whether to bolster it or to block-grant it. And even on the question of something like prescription drug negotiation, whether we took some important steps under the Inflation Reduction Act. Do we now expand that authority to cover more drugs for more discounts for more people? Or do we give up that authority to negotiate for the best possible price?

Those are very key issues that are at stake in this election. We are a nonpartisan, non-endorsing organization, but we do want to make sure that health care issues are on people’s minds, and also, frankly, policymakers to make some commitments, including on something like what I was talking about earlier with those enhanced tax credits. Again, at a time when people are screaming about affordability, but we know that they’ve been actually screaming about health care affordability for not just years but decades. And that’s a very specific, concrete thing that literally means hundreds or thousands of dollars in people’s pockets.

Rovner: So then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris was a supporter of Medicare for All in 2020 when she ran. Do you expect that that may have changed, as she’s learned how hard it is even to make incremental change? I haven’t seen anybody ask her yet what her feeling is on systemic health reform.

Wright: I mean, she had a modified proposal that I think was trying to both take seriously the question of how do we get to universal coverage while also recognizing the politics and procedural barriers that exist. And so I think there’s a practical streak of how do we get the most help to the most people and help change, frankly, the financial incentives in our system, which are right now just to get bigger, not to get better. And so I think that there’s some very practical questions on the table right now, like these tax credits, this cap on how much a percentage of your income should go for premium. That’s something that’s front of mind because it literally expires next year. So it’s something that maybe gets dealt with in a lame duck, but hopefully early in the next year, since rates need to be decided early. And so those are the immediate things.

But I do think she’s also, in her record — I’m not going to talk about what may be — but in her record, she’s been supportive of the Affordable Care Act. I mean our biggest actual engagement with then-U.S. Sen. Harris was at a time when we all thought that the Affordable Care Act was a goner. It would be repealed and replaced. She was willing to be loud and proud at our rallies, in front of a thousand people, in front of a Los Angeles public hospital, talking about the need to defend the Affordable Care Act and protections for people with preexisting conditions. And she came again in July and just at a time where we needed that forceful defense of the Affordable Care Act. She was there and we very much appreciated that. I think she would continue to do that as well as want to work to build upon that financing and framework to make additional gains forward.

Rovner: This being Washington, everybody’s favorite parlor game this week is handicapping the vice presidential sweepstakes. And who about-to-be-candidate Harris is going to choose to be her running mate. Are any of the big names in contention more or less important in terms of their health care backgrounds?

Wright: I have my credentials to talk about the Californian on the ticket. I probably have less there. I do know that some of those governors and others have their own records of trying to take the framework of the ACA and adapt it to their state. And I think that would be a useful thing to continue to move forward on the trail. I’m not in a position, again, as a non-endorsing organization, we’re focused on the issues.

Rovner: You’re agnostic about the vice presidential candidate.

Wright: You’re right, I think the point is how can we make sure that people recognize what is at stake for the health care that they depend on and, frankly, the financial piece of it. Affordability has been something that has been talked about a lot and there is no greater source of economic anxiety and insecurity than the health care bill. A hospital bill is the biggest bill that anybody will get in their entire life. So how do you deal with it? And whether it’s a conversation about medical debt and how you deal with it, or what kind of tax credits we can provide to provide some security that you don’t pay more than the percentage of your income. Or how do you deal with the root causes of the market failures in our health care system, whether it’s consolidations and mergers or anticompetitive practices. Those are the things that I think we should have a bigger conversation in this campaign cycle about.

Rovner: Hopefully we’ll be able to do this again as it happens. Anthony Wright, thank you so much.

Wright: Thank you.

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

Cohrs Zhang: Sure. There’s a lot of good health journalism out there, but I have to highlight a new project from my colleagues. Bob Herman, Tara Bannow, Casey Ross, and Lizzy Lawrence are looking into UnitedHealth’s business practices, and there’s been a lot of buzz about UnitedHealthcare on the Hill, and the first part of their investigation is headlined “How UnitedHealth Harnesses Its Physician Empire To Squeeze Profits out of Patients.” It focuses on the trend that UnitedHealth has been acquiring so many physician practices and looks at the incentives of what actually happens when an insurer owns a physician practice.

What pressures are they putting on? What’s the patient experience? What’s the physician experience? Their physicians on the record were telling them about their experiences: having to turn through patients; feeling pressure to make patients look sicker on paper so UnitedHealth could get more money from the federal government to pay for them. And just, I mean, the documentation here is just really superb reporting. It’s part one of a series. And I think reporting like this really helps inform Washington about how these things are actually playing out and what’s next in terms of whether action should be taken to rein these practices in.

Rovner: I feel like the behemoth that is UnitedHealthcare is going to keep a lot of health reporters busy for a very long time to come. Alice.

Ollstein: Yeah. So there’s been a lot of news on the PrEP front recently. That’s the drug that prevents transmission of HIV. And so basically two steps forward, one step back. I chose this piece from Stat News [“A Pricey Gilead HIV Drug Could Be Made for Dramatically Less Than the Company Charges”], about a new form of PrEP that is an injection that you get just twice a year that has proven wildly effective in clinical trials. And so folks are really excited about that, and I think it could really make a difference because, as with birth control and as with lots of other medication, the effectiveness rate is only if you use it perfectly, which, you know, we’re humans. And humans don’t always adhere perfectly. And so something like just a couple injections a year that you could get from your doctor would go a long way towards compliance and making sure people are safe with their medications.

But my colleague and I also scooped this week that HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] is ending one of its big PrEP distribution programs [“Federal HIV Program Set To Wind Down”]. It’s called Ready, Set, PrEP. It debuted under the Trump administration in 2019. And the reason given by HHS for it ending — which, by the way, they were very quiet about and didn’t even tell a lot of providers that it was ending — they said it was because there are all these other ways people can get PrEP now, that didn’t exist back then, like generic versions. And while that’s true, we also heard from a lot of advocates who said the program was just really flawed from the start and didn’t reach even a fraction of the people it should have reached. And so we’ll continue to dig on that front.

Rovner: Good stories. Stephanie.

Armour: Yes. I picked the story by Dylan Scott on Vox about “Free Medical School Won’t Solve the Doctor Shortage.” And it looks at Michael Bloomberg, who is donating a billion dollars to Johns Hopkins to try to pay for medical school for students there. The idea being that, “Look, there’s this doctor shortage and what can we do to help?” And what’s really interesting about the story is it goes beyond just the donation to look at the fact that it’s not really that there’s a doctor shortage, it’s that we don’t have the right kind of doctors and it’s the distribution. Where you don’t have nearly what we need when it comes to psychiatrists, for example. And there’s a real dearth of physicians in areas that are rural or in the Midwest. So I think what it raises is what resources do we want to spend and where? What other steps can we do that would really help drive doctors to where they’re most needed? So it’s a good story. It’s worth a read.

Rovner: Yeah, it is a good story. It is a continuing problem that I continue to harp on. But we now have quote-unquote “free medical school,” mostly in really urban, really expensive places.

Armour: Yes.

Rovner: New York, Los Angeles, Baltimore. That’s nice for the doctors who will now graduate without $200,000 in medical debt. But yeah, as Dylan points out, it’s not exactly solving the problem that we have. Well, I went cute this week. My extra credit this week is from NPR. It’s called “A Study Finds That Dogs Can Smell Your Stress — And Make Decisions Accordingly,” by Rachel Treisman. Now, we’ve known for a fairly long time that dogs’ sensitive noses can detect physical changes in their humans. That’s how alert dogs for epilepsy and diabetes and other ailments actually work.

But what we didn’t know until now is that if a dog smells a person’s stress, it can change the dog’s emotional reaction. It was a complicated experiment that you can read about if you want, but as somebody who competes with my dogs, and who knows how differently they act when I am nervous, this study explains a lot.

All right, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us too. Special thanks, as always, to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, @jrovner. Alice, where are you?

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein on X.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs Zhang: @rachelcohrs on X.

Rovner: Stephanie.

Armour: @StephArmour1.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Not so long ago, Bonner General Health, the hospital in Sandpoint, Idaho, had four OB/GYNs on staff, who treated patients from multiple rural counties.

That was before Idaho’s near-total abortion ban went into effect almost two years ago, criminalizing most abortions. All four of Bonner’s OB/GYNs left by last summer, some citing fears that the state’s ban exposed them to legal peril for doing their jobs.

The exodus forced Bonner General to shutter its labor and delivery unit and sent patients scrambling to seek new providers more than 40 miles away in Coeur d’Alene or Post Falls, or across the state border to Spokane, Wash. It has made Sandpoint a “double desert,” meaning it lacks access to both maternity care and abortion services.

One patient, Jonell Anderson, was referred to an OB-GYN in Coeur d’Alene, roughly an hour’s drive from Sandpoint, after an ultrasound showed a mass growing in her uterus. Anderson made multiple trips to the out-of-town provider. Previously, she would have found that care close to home.

The experience isn’t limited to this small Idaho town.

A 2023 analysis by ABC News and Boston Children’s Hospital found that more than 1.7 million women of reproductive age in the United States live in a “double desert.” About 3.7 million women live in counties with no access to abortion and little to no maternity care.

Texas, Mississippi and Kentucky have the highest numbers of women of reproductive age living in double deserts, according to the analysis.

Amelia Huntsberger, one of the OB/GYNs who chose to leave Sandpoint — despite having practiced there for a decade — did so because she felt she couldn’t provide the care her patients needed under a law as strict as Idaho’s.

The growing provider shortages in rural states affect not only pregnant and postpartum women, but all women, said Usha Ranji, an associate director for Women’s Health Policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

“Pregnancy is obviously a very intense period of focus, but people need access to this care before, during and after, and outside of pregnancy,” Ranji said.

The problem is expected to worsen.

In Idaho, the number of applicants to fill spots left by departing doctors has “absolutely plummeted,” said Susie Keller, CEO of the Idaho Medical Association.

“We are witnessing the dismantling of our health system,” she said.

This article is not available for syndication due to republishing restrictions. If you have questions about the availability of this or other content for republication, please contact NewsWeb@kff.org.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The head of Health Access California, one of the state’s most influential consumer groups, changed course only after he and his allies extracted a deal to increase subsidies for people in need.

The plan was ultimately blocked by Democrats who wanted the state to adopt a single-payer health care system instead. Yet the moment encapsulates classic Anthony Wright: independent-minded and willing to compromise if it could help Californians live healthier lives without going broke.

This summer, Wright will assume the helm of the health consumer group Families USA, taking his campaign for more affordable and accessible health care to the national level and a deeply divided Congress. In his 23 years in Sacramento, Wright has successfully lobbied to outlaw surprise medical billing, require companies to report drug price increases, and cap hospital bills for uninsured patients — policies that have spread nationwide.

“He pushed the envelope and gave people aspirational leadership,” said Jennifer Kent, who served as Schwarzenegger’s head of the Department of Health Care Services, which administers the state Medicaid program. The two were often on opposing sides on health policy issues. “There was always, like, one more thing, one more goal, one more thing to achieve.”

Recently, Wright co-led a coalition of labor and immigrant rights activists to provide comprehensive Medicaid benefits to all eligible California residents regardless of immigration status. The state funds this coverage because the federal government doesn’t allow it.

His wins have come mostly under Democratic governors and legislatures and when Republican support hasn’t been needed. That will not be the case in Washington, D.C., where Republicans currently control the House and the Senate Democratic Caucus has a razor-thin majority, which has made it extremely difficult to pass substantive legislation. November’s elections are not expected to ease the partisan impasse.

Though both Health Access and Families USA are technically nonpartisan, they tend to align with Democrats and lobby for Democratic policies, including abortion rights. But “Anthony doesn’t just talk to his own people,” said David Panush, a veteran Sacramento health policy consultant. “He has an ability to connect with people who don’t agree with you on everything.”

Wright, who interned for Vice President Al Gore and worked as a consumer advocate at the Federal Communications Commission in his 20s, acknowledges his job will be tougher in the nation’s capital, and said he is “wide-eyed about the dysfunction” there. He said he also plans to work directly with state lawmakers, including encouraging those in the 10, mostly Republican states that have not yet expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act to do so.

In an interview with California Healthline senior correspondent Samantha Young, Wright, 53, discussed his accomplishments in Sacramento and the challenges he will face leading a national consumer advocacy group. His remarks have been edited for length and clarity.

Q: Is there something California has done that you’d like to see other states or the federal government adopt?

Just saying “We did this in California” is not going to get me very far in 49 other states. But stuff that has already gone national, like the additional assistance to buy health care coverage with state subsidies, that became something that was a model for what the federal government did in the American Rescue Plan [Act] and the Inflation Reduction Act. Those additional tax credits have had a huge impact. About 5 million Americans have coverage because of them. Yet, those additional tax credits expire in 2025. If those tax credits expire, the average premium will spike $400 a month.

Q: You said you will find yourself playing defense if former President Donald Trump is elected in November. What do you mean?

Our health is on the ballot. I worry about the Affordable Care Act and the protections for preexisting conditions, the help for people to afford coverage, and all the other consumer patient protections. I think reproductive health is obviously front and center, but that’s not the only thing that could be taken away. It could also be something like Medicare’s authority to negotiate prices on prescription drugs.

Q: But Trump has said he doesn’t want to repeal the ACA this time, rather “make it better.”

We just need to look at the record of what was proposed during his first term, which would have left millions more people uninsured, which would have spiked premiums, which would have gotten rid of key patient protections.

Q: What’s on your agenda if President Joe Biden wins reelection?

It partially depends on the makeup of Congress and other elected officials. Do you extend this guarantee that nobody has to spend more than 8.5% of their income on coverage? Are there benefits that we can actually improve in Medicare and Medicaid with regard to vision and dental? What are the cost drivers in our health system?

There is a lot we can do at both the state and the federal level to get people both access to health care and also financial security, so that their health emergency doesn’t become a financial emergency as well.

Q: Will it be harder to get things done in a polarized Washington?

The dysfunction of D.C. is a real thing. I don’t have delusions that I have any special powers, but we will try to do our best to make progress. There are still very stark differences, whether it’s about the Affordable Care Act or, more broadly, about the social safety net. But there’s always opportunities for advancing an agenda.

There could be a lot of common ground on areas like health care costs and having greater oversight and accountability for quality in cost and quality in value, for fixing market failures in our health system.

Q: What would happen in California if the ACA were repealed?

When there was the big threat to the ACA, a lot of people thought, “Can’t California just do its own thing?” Without the tens of billions of dollars that the Affordable Care Act provides, it would have been very hard to sustain. If you get rid of those subsidies, and 5 million Californians lose their coverage, it becomes a smaller and sicker risk pool. Then premiums spike up for everybody, and, basically, the market becomes a death spiral that will cover nobody, healthy or sick.

Q: California expanded Medicaid to qualified immigrants living in the state without authorization. Do you think that could happen at the federal level?

Not at the moment. I would probably be more focused on the states that are not providing Medicaid to American citizens [who] just happen to be low-income. They are turning away precious dollars that are available for them.

Q: What do you take away from your time at Health Access that will help you in Washington?

It’s very rare that anything of consequence is done in a year. In many cases, we’ve had to run a bill or pursue a policy for multiple years or sessions. So, the power of persistence is that if you never give up, you’re never defeated, only delayed. Prescription drug price transparency took three years, surprise medical bills took three years, the hospital fair-pricing act took five years.

Having a coalition of consumer voices is important. Patients and the public are not just another stakeholder. Patients and the public are the point of the health care system.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

In what will certainly be remembered as a landmark decision, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority this week overruled a 40-year-old legal precedent that required judges in most cases to yield to the expertise of federal agencies. It is unclear how the elimination of what’s known as the “Chevron deference” will affect the day-to-day business of the federal government, but the decision is already sending shockwaves through the policymaking community. Administrative experts say it will dramatically change the way key health agencies, such as the FDA and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, do business.

The Supreme Court also this week decided not to decide a case out of Idaho that centered on whether a federal health law that requires hospitals to provide emergency care overrides the state’s near-total ban on abortion.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins schools of public health and nursing and Politico Magazine, Victoria Knight of Axios, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled broadly that courts should defer to the decision-making of federal agencies when an ambiguous law is challenged. On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the courts, not federal agencies, should have the final say. The ruling will make it more difficult to implement federal laws — and draws attention to the fact that Congress, frequently and pointedly, leaves federal agencies much of the job of turning written laws into reality.
• That was hardly the only Supreme Court decision with major health implications this week: On Thursday, the court temporarily restored access to emergency abortions in Idaho. But as with its abortion-pill decision, it ruled on a technicality, with other, similar cases in the wings — like one challenging Texas’ abortion ban.
• In separate rulings, the court struck down a major opioid settlement agreement, and it effectively allowed the federal government to petition social media companies to remove falsehoods. Plus, the court agreed to hear a case next term on transgender health care for minors.
• The first general-election debate of the 2024 presidential cycle left abortion activists frustrated with their standard-bearers — on both sides of the aisle. Opponents didn’t like that former President Donald Trump doubled down on his stance that abortion should be left to the states. And abortion rights supporters felt President Joe Biden failed to forcefully rebut Trump’s outlandish falsehoods about abortion — and also failed to take a strong enough position on abortion rights himself.

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

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “Masks Are Going From Mandated to Criminalized in Some States,” by Fenit Nirappil.  

Victoria Knight: The New York Times’ “The Opaque Industry Secretly Inflating Prices for Prescription Drugs,” by Rebecca Robbins and Reed Abelson. 

Joanne Kenen: The Washington Post’s “Social Security To Drop Obsolete Jobs Used To Deny Disability Benefits,” by Lisa Rein.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “Opioid Deaths Rose 50 Percent During the Pandemic. in These Places, They Fell,” by Ruth Reader.  

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• Politico’s “Inside the $100 Million Plan To Restore Abortion Rights in America,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.
• JAMA Network Open’s “Use of Oral and Emergency Contraceptives After the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs Decision,” by Dima M. Qato, Rebecca Myerson, Andrew Shooshtari, et al.
• JAMA Health Forum’s “Changes in Permanent Contraception Procedures Among Young Adults Following the Dobbs Decision,” by Jacqueline E. Ellison, Brittany L. Brown-Podgorski, and Jake R. Morgan.
• JAMA Pediatrics’ “Infant Deaths After Texas’ 2021 Ban on Abortion in Early Pregnancy,” by Alison Gemmill, Claire E. Margerison, Elizabeth A. Stuart, et al.

click to open the transcript

SCOTUS Ruling Strips Power From Federal Health Agencies

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: ‘SCOTUS Ruling Strips Power From Federal Health Agencies’Episode Number: 353Published: June 28, 2024

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

Mila Atmos: The future of America is in your hands. This is not a movie trailer, and it’s not a political ad, but it is a call to action. I’m Mila Atmos and I’m passionate about unlocking the power of everyday citizens. On our podcast, “Future Hindsight,” we take big ideas about civic life and democracy and turn them into action items for you and me. Every Thursday, we talk to bold activists and civic innovators to help you understand your power and your power to change the status quo. Find us at futurehindsight.com or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Friday, June 28, at 10:30 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this, so here we go.

We are joined today via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios News.

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone.

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Schools of Nursing and Public Health and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: I hope you enjoyed last week’s episode from Aspen Ideas: Health. This week we’re back in Washington with tons of breaking news, so let’s get right to it. We’re going to start at the Supreme Court, which is nearing, but not actually at, the end of its term, which we now know will stretch into next week. We have breaking news, literally breaking as in just the last few minutes: The court has indeed overruled the Chevron Doctrine. That’s a 1984 ruling that basically allowed experts at federal agencies to, you know, expert. Now it says that the court will get to decide what Congress meant when it wrote a law. We’re obviously going to hear a lot more about this ruling in the hours and days to come, but does somebody have a really quick impression of what this could mean?

Ollstein: So this could prevent or make it harder for health agencies, and all the federal agencies that touch on health care, to both create new policies based on laws that Congress pass and update old ones. Things need to be updated; new drugs are invented. There’s been all these updates to what Obamacare does and doesn’t have to cover. That could be a lot harder going forward based on this decision. It really takes away a lot of the leeway federal agencies had to interpret the laws that Congress passed and implement them.

I think kicking things back to courts and Congress could really slow things down a lot, and a lot of conservatives see that as a good thing. They think that federal agencies have been too untouchable and not have the same accountability mechanisms because they’re career civil servants who are not elected. But this has health policy experts … Honestly, we interviewed members of previous Republican administrations and Democratic administrations and they’re both worried about this.

Rovner: Yeah, going forward, if Donald Trump gets back into the presidency, this could also hinder the ability of his Department of Health and Human Services to make changes administratively.

Knight: These agencies are stacked with experts. This is what they work on. This is what they really are primed to do. And Congress does not have that same type of staffing. Congress is very different. It’s very young. There’s a lot of turnover. There are experienced staffers, but usually when they’re writing these laws, they leave so much up to interpretation of the agency because they are experts.

So I think pushing things back on Congress would really have to change how Congress works right now. When I talked to experts, we would need staffers who are way more experienced. We would need them to write laws that are way more specific. And Congress is already so slow doing anything. This would slow things down even more. So that’s a really important congressional aspect I think to note.

Rovner: I think when we look back at this term, this is probably going to be the biggest decision. Joanne, you want to add something before we move on?

Kenen: We’re recording. We don’t know if immunity just dropped, which is all still going to be, not a health care decision but an important decision of the country. I’ve got SCOTUSblog on my other screen. Here’s a quote from [Justice Elena] Kagan’s dissent. She says, because it’s very unfocused for what we do on this podcast, “Chevron has become part of the warp and woof of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds, to name a few, keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe and financial markets honest.” So two of the three of us. Financial markets affect the health industry as well.

Rovner: Oh, yeah.

Kenen: But I think that what the public doesn’t always understand is how much regulatory stuff there is in Washington. Congress can write a 1,000-page law like the ACA [Affordable Care Act]. I’ve never counted how many pages of regulation because I don’t think I can count that high. It’s probably tens of thousands.

Rovner: At least hundreds of thousands.

Kenen: Right. And that every one of those, there’s a lobbying fight and often a legal fight. It’s like the coloring book when we were kids. Congress drew the outline and then we all tried to scribble within the lines. And when you go out of the lines, you have a legal case. So the amount of stuff, regulatory activity is something that the public doesn’t really see. None of us have read every reg pertaining to health care. You can’t possibly do it in a lifetime. Methuselah couldn’t have done it. And Congress cannot hire all the expert staff and all the federal agencies and put them in; they won’t fit in the Capitol. That’s not going to happen. So how do they come to grips with how specific are they going to have to be? What kind of legal language can they delegate some of this to agency experts. We’re in really uncharted territory.

Rovner: I think you can tell from the tones of all of our voices that this is a very big deal, with a whole lot of blanks to be filled in. But for the moment …

Kenen: Maybe they’ll just let AI do it.

Rovner: Yeah, for the moment, let’s move on because, until just now, the biggest story of the week for us was on Thursday. We finally got a decision in that case about whether Idaho’s near-total ban on abortion can override a federal law called EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which requires doctors in emergency rooms to protect a pregnant woman’s health, not just her life. And much like the decision earlier this month to send the abortion pill case back to the lower courts because the plaintiffs lacked legal standing, the court once again didn’t reach the merits here. So Alice, what did they do?

Ollstein: So like you said, both on abortion pills and on EMTALA, the court punted on procedural issues. So it was standing on the one and it was ripeness on the other one. This one was a lot more surprising. I think based on the oral arguments in the mifepristone case, we could see the standing-based decision coming. That was a big focus of the arguments. This was more of a surprise. This was a majority of justices saying, “Whoops, we shouldn’t have taken this case in the first place. We shouldn’t have swooped in before the 9th Circuit even had a chance to hear it. And not only take the case, but allow Idaho to fully enforce its law even in ways that people feel violate EMTALA in the meantime.” And so what this does temporarily is restore emergency abortion access in Idaho. It restores a lower-court order that made that the case, but it’s not over.

Rovner: Right. It had stayed Idaho’s ban to the extent that it conflicted with EMTALA.

Ollstein: So this goes back to lower courts and it’s almost certain to come back to the Supreme Court as early as next year, if not at another time. Because this isn’t even the only major federal EMTALA case that’s in the works right now. There’s also a case on Texas’ abortion ban and its enforcement in emergency situations like this. And so I think the main reaction from the abortion rights movement was temporary relief, but a lot of fear for the future.

Rovner: And I saw a lot of people reminding everybody that this Texas ruling in Idaho, now the federal law is taking precedence, but there’s a stay of the federal law in the 5th Circuit. So in Texas, the Texas ban does overrule the federal law that requires abortions in emergency circumstances to protect a woman’s health. That’s what the dispute is basically about. And of course, you see a lot of legal experts saying, “This is a constitutional law 101 case that federal law overrides state law,” and yet we could tell by some of the add-on discussion in this case, as they’re sending it back to the lower court, that some of the conservatives are ready to say, “We don’t think so. Maybe the federal law will have to yield to some of these state bans.” So you can kind of see the writing on the wall here?

Ollstein: It’s really hard to say. I think that you have some justices who are clearly ready to say that states can fully enforce their abortion bans regardless of what the federal government’s federal protections are for patients. I think they put that out there. I think the case is almost certain to come back to them, and there was clearly not a majority ready to fully side with the Biden administration on this one.

Rovner: And clearly not a majority ready to fully side with Idaho on this one. I think everything that I saw suggested that they were split 3-3-3. And with no majority, the path of least resistance was to say, “Our bad. You take this back lower court. We’ll see when it comes back.”

Ollstein: It was a very unusual move, but some of the justification made sense to me in that they cited that Idaho state officials’ position on what their abortion ban did and didn’t do has wavered over time and changed. And what they initially said when they petitioned to the court is not necessarily exactly what they said in oral arguments, and it’s not exactly what they have said since. And so at the heart here is you have some people saying there’s a clear conflict between the patient protections under EMTALA — which says you have to stabilize anyone that comes to you at a hospital that takes Medicare — and these abortion bans, which only allow an abortion when there’s imminent life-threatening situation. And so you have people, including the attorney general of Idaho, saying, “There is no conflict. Our law does allow these emergency abortions and the doctors are just wrong and it’s just propaganda trying to smear us. And they just want to turn hospitals into free-for-all abortion facilities.” This is what they’re arguing. And then you have people say …

Rovner: [inaudible 00:11:12] … in the meanwhile, we know that women are being airlifted out of Idaho when they need emergency abortions because doctors are worried about actually performing abortions …

Ollstein: Correct.

Rovner: And possibly being charged with criminal charges for violating Idaho’s abortion ban.

Ollstein: Sure, but I’m saying even amongst conservatives, there are those who are saying, “There’s no conflict between these two policies. The doctors are just wrong either intentionally or unintentionally.” And then there’s those who say there is a conflict between EMTALA and state bans, and it should be fine for the state to violate EMTALA.

Rovner: No. Obviously this one will continue as the abortion pill case is likely to continue. Well, also in this end-of-term Supreme Court decision dump, an oddly split court with liberals and conservatives on both sides, struck down the bankruptcy deal reached with Purdue Pharma that would’ve paid states and families of opioid overdose victims around $6 billion, but would also have shielded the company’s owners, the Sackler family, from further legal liability. What are we to make of this? This was clearly a difficult issue. There were a lot of people even who were involved in this settlement who said the idea of letting the Sackler family, which has hidden billions of dollars from the bankruptcy settlement anyway, and clearly acted very badly, basically giving them immunity in exchange for actually getting money. This could not have been an easy… obviously was not an easy decision even for the Supreme Court.

Kenen: No, it wasn’t theoretical. The ones who opposed blowing up the agreement were very much, “This is going to add delay any kind of justice for the families and the plaintiffs.” It was not at all abstract. It was like there are a lot of people who aren’t going to get help. At least the help will be delayed if this money doesn’t start flowing. So I was struck by how practical, relating to the families who have lost people because of the actions of Purdue. But the other side was, also that was much more a clear-cut legal issue, that people didn’t give up their right to sue. It was cutting off the right to sue was imposed on potential plaintiffs by the settlement. So that was a much more legalistic argument versus, it was a little bit more real world, but they need the help now. And including some of the conservatives. This is an interesting thing to read. This was painstaking. This is a huge settlement. It took so long. It had many, many moving parts. And I don’t know how you go back and put it together again.

Rovner: But that’s where we are.

Kenen: Yes.

Rovner: They have to basically start from scratch?

Kenen: I don’t know if they have to start entirely from scratch. You’d have to be nuts to get the Sacklers to say, “OK, we’ll be sued,” which they’re obviously you’re not going to. Is somebody going to come up with a “Split the difference, let’s get this moving and we won’t sue anymore?” I don’t know. But I don’t know that you have to start 100% from scratch, but you’re surely not anywhere near a finish line anymore.

Rovner: That’s big Supreme Court case No. 3 for this week. Now let’s get to big Supreme Court case No. 4. Earlier this week, the court turned back a challenge that the government had wrongly interfered with free speech by urging social media organizations to take down covid misinformation. But again, as with the abortion pill case, the court did not get to the merits. But instead, they ruled that the states and individuals who sued did not have standing. So we still don’t know what the court thinks of the role of government in trying to ensure that health information is correct. Right?

Knight: Right. And I thought it was interesting. Basically the White House was like, “Well, we talked to the tech companies, but it was their decision to do this. So we weren’t really mandating them do this.” I think they’re just being like, “OK, we’ve left it up to the tech companies. We haven’t really interfered. We’re just trying to say these things are harmful.” So I guess we’ll have to see. Like you said, they didn’t take it up on standing, but overall, conservatives that were saying, “This was infringing on free speech.” It was particularly some scientists, I think, that promoted the herd immunity theory, things like that.

So I think they’re obviously going to be upset in some way because their posts were depromoted on social media. But I think it just leaves things the way they are, the same way. But it would be interesting, I guess, if Trump does go to the White House, how that might play out differently?

Rovner: This court has been a lot of the court deciding not to decide cases, or not to decide issues. Sorry, Alice, go ahead.

Ollstein: Yeah, so I think it is pretty similar to the abortion pill case in one key way, which is that it’s the court saying, “Look, the connection between the harm you think you suffered and the entity you are accusing of causing that suffering, that connection is way too tenuous. You can’t prove that the Biden administration voicing concerns to these social media companies directly led to you getting shadow-banned or actual banned,” or whatever it is. And the same in the abortion pill case, the connection between the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approving the drug and regulating the drug and these individual doctors’ experiences is way too tenuous. And so that’s something to keep in mind for future cases that, we’re seeing a pattern here.

Rovner: Yes, and I’m not suggesting that the court is directly trying to duck these issues. These are legitimate standing cases and important legal precedents for who can sue in what circumstance. That is the requirement of constitutional review that first you have to make sure that there’s both standing in a live controversy and there’s all kinds of things that the court has to go through before they get to the merits. So more often than not, they don’t get there.

Well, meanwhile, we have our first hot-button, Supreme Court case slotted in for next term. On Monday, the court granted “certiorari” [writ by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court] to a case out of Tennessee where the Biden administration is challenging the state’s ban on transgender care for minors. It was inevitable that one of these cases was going to get to the high court sooner or later, right?

Kenen: Yeah, I think it’s not a surprise, the politics of it and the techniques or tools used by the forces that are against the treatment for minors. It’s very similar to the politics and patterns of the abortion case, of turning something into an argument that it’s to protect somebody. A lot of the abortion requirements and fights were about to protect the woman. Ostensibly, that was the political argument. And now we’re seeing we have to protect the children so that it’s the courts, as opposed to families and doctors, who are, “protecting the children.”

There’s a lot of misunderstanding about what these treatments do and who gets them and at what age;  that they’re often described as mutilation and irreversible. For the younger kids, for preteen, middle school age-ish, early teens, nothing is irreversible. It’s drugs that if you stop them, the impact goes away. But it has become this enormous lightning rod for the intersection of health and politics. And I think we all have a pretty good guess as to where the Supreme Court’s going to end up on this. But you’re sometimes surprised. And also, there could be some …

Rovner: Maybe they don’t have standing.

Kenen: There could be some kind of moderation, too. It could be a certain … they don’t have to say all … it depends on how clinical they want to get. Maybe they’ll rule on certain treatments that are more less-reversible than a puberty blocker, which is very reversible, and some kind of safeguards. We don’t know the details. We’re not surprised that it ended up … and we know going in, you could have a gut feeling of where it’s likely to turn out without knowing the full parameters and caveats and details. They haven’t even argued it yet.

Rovner: This is a decision that we’ll be waiting for next June.

Kenen: Right. Well, could not. Maybe it’s so clear-cut, it’ll be May. Who knows, right?

Rovner: Yeah, exactly. All right, well, moving on. There was a presidential debate last night. I think it was fair to say that it didn’t go very well for either candidate, nor for anybody interested in what President Biden or former President Trump thinks about health issues. What did we learn, if anything?

Ollstein: Well, I was mainly listening for a discussion of abortion and, boy was it all over the place. What I thought was interesting was that both candidates pissed off their activist supporters with what they said. I was texting with a lot of folks on both sides and conservatives were upset that Trump doubled down on his position that this should be entirely left to states, and they disagree. They want him to push for federal restrictions if elected.

And on the left, there was a lot of consternation about Biden’s weird, meandering answer about Roe v. Wade. He was asked about abortions later in pregnancy. One, neither he nor the moderators pushed back on what Trump’s very inflammatory claims about babies being murdered and stuff. There was no fact-checking of that whatsoever. But then Biden gave a confusing answer, basically saying he supports going to the Roe standard but not further, which is what I took out of it. And that upset a lot of progressives who say Roe was never good enough. For a lot of people, when Roe v. Wade was still in place, abortion was a right in name only. It was not actually accessible. States could impose lots of restrictions that kept it out of reach for a lot of people. And in this moment, why should we go back to a standard that was never good enough? We should go further. So just a lot of anxiety on both sides of this.

Rovner: Yeah. Meanwhile, Trump seemed to say that he would leave the abortion pill alone, which jumped out at me.

Kenen: But that was a completely … CNN made a decision not to push back. They were going to have online fact-checking. Everybody else had online fact. … And they didn’t challenge. And I guess they assumed that the candidates would challenge each other, and Biden had a different kind of challenging night. Trump actually said that the previous Supreme Court had upheld the use of the abortion drug and that it’s over, it’s done. That was not a true statement. The Supreme Court rejected that case, as Alice just explained, on standing. It’s going to be back. It may be back in multiple forms, multiple times. It is not decided. It is not over, which is what Trump said, “Oh, don’t worry about the abortion drug. The Supreme Court OK’d it.” That’s not what the Supreme Court did, and Biden didn’t counter that in any way.

And then Biden, in addition to the political aspect that Alice just talked about, he also didn’t describe Roe, the framework of Roe, particularly accurately. And, as Alice just pointed out, the things that Trump said were over-the-top even for Trump, and that they went unchallenged by either the moderators or President Biden.

Rovner: I was a little bit surprised that there wasn’t anything else on health care or there wasn’t much else.

Knight: Biden tried to hit his health care talking points and did a very terrible job. Alice had a really good tweet getting the right. … He initially said wrong numbers for the insulin cap, for the cap on out-of-pocket for Medicare beneficiaries, how much they can spend on prescription drugs. He got both of those wrong. I think he got insulin right later in the night. And then the very notably, “We will beat Medicare.” That was just unclear what he even meant by that. Maybe it was about drug price negotiations, I’m sure. So he was trying, but just could not get the facts right and I don’t think it came across effective in any way. And health care does do really well for Democrats. Abortion does really well for Democrats. So he was not effective in putting those messages.

I also noticed the moderators asked a question about opioids, addressing the opioid epidemic. Trump did not answer at all, pivoted to I think border or something like that. I don’t think Biden really answered either, honestly. So that was an opportunity for them to also talk about addressing that, which I think is something they could both probably talk about in a winning way for both. But I thought it was mentioned more than I expected a little bit. I thought they may want to talk about it at all. So it was still not much substantive policy discussion on health care.

Kenen: Biden tried to get across some of the Democratic policies on drug prices and polls have shown that the public doesn’t really understand that is actually the law in going forward. So if any attempt to message that in front of a very large audience was completely muddled. Nobody listening to that debate would’ve come out — unless they knew going in — they would’ve not have come out knowing what was in the law about Medicare price negotiations. They would’ve gotten four different answers of what happened with insulin, although they probably figured something good, helpful happened. And a big opportunity to push a Democratic achievement that has some bipartisan popularity was completely evaporated.

Rovner: I think Biden did the classic over-prepare and stuff too many talking points into his head and then couldn’t sort them all out in the moment. That seemed pretty clear. He was trying to retrieve the talking point and they got a little bit jumbled in his attempt to bring them out. Well, back to abortion: Alice, you got a cool scoop this week about abortion rights groups banding together with a $100 million campaign to overturn the overturn of Roe. Tell us about that?

Ollstein: Yeah, so it’s notable because there’s been so much focus on the state level battles and fighting this out state by state, and the ballot initiatives that have passed at the state level and restored or protected access have been this glimmer of hope for the abortion rights movement. But I think there was a real crystallization of the understanding that that strategy alone would leave tens of millions of people out in the cold because a lot of states don’t have the ability to do a ballot initiative. And also, if there were to be some sort of federal restrictions imposed under a Trump presidency or whatever, those state level protections wouldn’t necessarily hold. So I think this effort of groups coming together to really spend big and say that they want to restore federal protections is really notable.

I also think it’s notable that they are not committing to a specific bill or plan or law they want to see. They are keeping on the, “This is our vision, this is our broad goal.” But they’re not saying, “We want to restore Roe specifically, we want to go further,” et cetera. And that’s creating some consternation within the movement. I’ve also, since publishing the story, heard a lot of anxiety about the level of spending going to this when people feel that that should be going to direct support for people who are suffering on the ground and struggling to access abortion. Right now you have abortion funds screaming that they’re being stretched to the breaking point and cannot help everyone who needs to travel out of state right now. So, of course, infighting on the left is a perennial, but I think it’s particularly interesting in this case.

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, we have a trio this week of examples of what I think it’s safe to call unintended consequences of the Supreme Court’s overturn of Roe. First, a study in the medical journal JAMA Pediatrics this week, found that in the first year abortion was dramatically restricted in Texas — remember, that was before the overturn of Roe — infant deaths rose fairly dramatically. In particular, deaths from congenital problems rose, suggesting that women carrying doomed fetuses gave birth instead of having abortions. What’s the takeaway from seeing this big spike in infant mortality?

Ollstein: So I’ve seen a lot of anti-abortion groups trying to spin this and push back really hard on it. Specifically picking up on what you just said, which is that a lot of these are fatal fetal anomalies. And so they were saying, “Were abortion still legal, those pregnancies could have been terminated before birth.” And so they’re saying, “There’s no difference really, because we consider that an infant death already. So now it’s an infant death after birth. Nothing to see here.”

Rovner: When everybody has suffered more, basically.

Ollstein: Yeah, that is the response I’m seeing on the right. On the left, I am seeing arguments that anyone who labels themselves pro-life should think twice about the impact of these policies that are playing out. And like you said, we’re only just beginning to get glimmers of this data. In part because Texas was out in front of everybody else, and so I think there’s a lot more to come.

The other pushback I’ve seen from anti-abortion groups is that infant mortality also rose in states where abortion remains legal. So I think that’s worth exploring, too. Obviously, correlation is not always causation, but I think it’s hard when you’re getting the data in little dribs and drabs instead of a full complete picture that we can really analyze.

Rovner: Well, in another JAMA study, this one in JAMA Network Open, they found that the use of Plan B, the morning-after birth control pill, fell by 60% in states that implemented abortion bans after the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] decision. Now, for the millionth time, Plan B is not the same as the abortion pill. It’s a high-dose contraceptive. But apparently, a combination of the closure of family planning clinics in states that impose bans, which are an important source of pills for people with low incomes who can’t afford over-the-counter versions, and misinformation about the continuing legality of the morning-after pill, which continues to be legal, contributed to the decline. At least that’s what the authors theorize. This is one of many ironies in the wake of Dobbs; that states with abortion bans may well be ending up with more unintended pregnancies rather than fewer.

Ollstein: Well, one trends that could be feeding this is that some of the clinics where people used to go to to access contraception, also provided abortion and have not been able to keep their doors open in a post-Roe environment. We’ve seen clinics shutting down across the South. I went to Alabama last year to cover this, and there are clinics there that used to get most of their revenue from abortion, and they’re trying to hang on and provide nonabortion gynecological services, including contraception, and the math just ain’t mathing, and they’re really struggling to survive.

And so this goes back to the finger-pointing within the movement about where money should be going right now. And I know that red state clinics that are trying to survive feel very left behind and feel that this erosion of access is a result of that.

Kenen: Julie, and also to put in, even before Dobbs, it was not easy in many parts of the country for low-income women to get free contraception. There are states in which clinics were few and far between. Federal spending on Title X has not risen in many years.

Rovner: Title X is a federal [indecipherable].

Kenen: Right. Alice knows this, and maybe I’ve said on the podcast, I once just pretty randomly with me and my cursor plunked my cursor down on a map of Texas and said, “OK, if I live here, how far is the nearest clinic?” And I looked at the map of the clinics and it was far, it was something like 95 miles, the nearest one. So we had abortion deserts. We’ve also had family planning deserts, and that has only gotten worse, but it wasn’t good in the first place.

Rovner: Well, finally, and for those who really want to make sure they don’t have unintended pregnancies, according to a study in a third AMA journal, JAMA Health Forum, the number of young women aged 18 to 30 who were getting sterilized doubled in the 15 months after Roe was overturned. Men are part of this trend, too. Vasectomies tripled over that same period. Are we looking at a generation that’s so scared, they’re going to end up just not having kids at all?

Kenen: Well, there are a lot of kids in this generation who are saying they don’t want to have kids for a variety of reasons: economic, climate, all sorts of things. I think that I was a little surprised to see that study because there are safe long-acting contraceptives. You can get an IUD that lasts seven to nine years, I think it is. I was a little surprised that people were choosing something irreversible because.. I do know young people who… You’re young, you go through lots of changes in life, and there is an alternative that’s multiyear. So I was a little surprised by that. But that’s apparently what’s happening. And it’s for… This generation is not as… What are they, Gen[eration] Z? They’re not as baby-oriented as their older brothers and sisters even.

Knight: Well, that age range is millennial and Gen Z. But I don’t know. I’m a millennial. I think a lot of my friends were not baby-oriented. So I think that’s probably a fair statement to say. But it is interesting that they wouldn’t choose an IUD or something like that instead. But I do think people are scared. We’ve seen the stories of people moving out of states that have really strict abortion bans because they are so concerned on what kind of medical care they could have, even if they think they want to get pregnant. And sometimes you don’t have a healthy pregnancy and then need to get an abortion. So I’m sure it has something to do with that but…

Rovner: Yeah, it’s one of those trends to keep an eye out for. Well, moving on, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has been busy these past couple of weeks. First, he published an op-ed in The New York Times calling for a warning label for social media that’s similar to the one that’s already on tobacco products, warning that social media has not been proven safe for children and teenagers. Of course, he doesn’t have his own authority to do that. Congress would have to pass a law. Any chance of that? I know Congress is definitely into the “What are we going to do about social media” realm.

Kenen: But talking about it and doing something or thinking, it’s a long way. Is this as, compared to his other topic of the week, which was gun safety? He’s got a lot more bipartisan …

Rovner: We’re getting to that.

Kenen: … He’s got a lot more bipartisan support for the concern about health of young people and what social media is. What is social media? Social media is mixed. There are good things and bad things, and what is that balance? There is a bipartisan concern. I don’t know that that means you get to the labeling point. But the labeling point is one thing. That the larger concept of concern about it, and recognition about it, and what do we do about it, is bipartisan up to a point. How do you even label? What do you label? Your phone? Your computer? I’m not sure where the label goes. Your eyelids? [inaudible 00:33:07]

Knight: Right. Well, tech bills in Congress in general are like… Even though TikTok was surprisingly able to get done in the House. But TikTok lobby was big. But there would be a big social media lobby, I’m sure, against that. I guess there is bipartisan support. I don’t know. It’s not something I’ve asked members about, but I think that would be pretty far off from a reality actually happening.

Rovner: Well, also this week, as Joanne mentioned, the surgeon general issued a Surgeon General’s Advisory, declaring gun violence a public health crisis, calling for more research funding on gun injuries and deaths, universal background checks for gun buyers, and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. I feel like the NRA [National Rifle Association] has lost some of its legendary clout on Capitol Hill over the past few years, thanks to a series of scandals, but maybe not enough for some of these things. I feel like I’ve heard these suggestions before, like over the last 25 or 30 years.

Kenen: I think one of the interesting things about Vivek Murthy is he came to public prominence on gun safety and guns in public health before people were really talking about guns in public health. I forgot what year it was — 2016, 2017, whenever Obama first nominated him. Because remember, this is his second run as surgeon general. It was an issue that he had spoken about and had made a signature issue, and as he became a more public figure before the nomination. And then he went silent on it. He had trouble getting confirmed. He didn’t do anything about it. We never really heard … as far as I can recollect, we never even heard him talk about it once. Maybe there was a phrase or two here or there. He certainly didn’t push it or make it a signature issue.

Right now, he’s at the end of the last year with the Biden administration. Some kind of arc is being completed. He’s a young man, there’ll be other arcs. But this arc is winding down and the president cares about gun violence. Congress actually did, not the full agenda, but they did something on it, which was unusual. And I think that this is his chance to use his bully pulpit while he still has it in this particular perch to remind people that we do have tools. We don’t have all the solutions to gun violence. We do not understand everything about it. We do not understand why some people go and shoot a movie theater or a school or a supermarket or whatever, and there are multiple reasons. There are different kinds of mass killers. But we do know that there are some public health tools that do work. That red flag laws do seem to help. That safe gun storage … There are things that are less controversial than a spectrum of things one can do.

Some of them have broader support, and I think he is using this time — not that he expects any of these things to become law in the final year of the Biden administration — but I think he’s using it. This is bully pulpit. This is saying, “Moving forward, let’s think about what we can come to agreement on and do what we can on certain evidence-based things.” Because there’s been a lot of work in the last decade or so on the public health, not just the criminal… Obviously, it’s a legal and criminal justice issue. It’s also a public health issue, and what are the public health tools? What can we do? How do we treat this as basically an epidemic? And how can we stop it?

Rovner: Finally this week, since we didn’t really do news last week, there have been a couple of notable stories we really ought to mention. One is a court case, Braidwood v. Becerra. This is the case where a group of Christian businesses are claiming that the Affordable Care Act’s preventive services provisions that require them to provide no cost-sharing access to products, including HIV preventive medication, violates their freedom of religion because it makes them complicit in homosexual behavior. Judge Reed O’Connor, district court judge — if that name is familiar, it’s because he’s the Texas judge who tried to strike down the entire ACA back in 2018. Judge O’Connor not only found for the plaintiffs, he tried to slap a nationwide injunction on all of the ACA’s preventive services, which even the very conservative 5th Circuit appeals court struck down. But meanwhile, the appeals court has come up with its ruling. Where does that leave us on the ACA preventive services?

Ollstein: It leaves us right where we were when the 5th Circuit took the case because they said that, “We’re going to allow the lower court ruling to be enforced just for the plaintiffs in the meantime, but we’re not going to allow the entire country’s preventive care coverage to be disrupted while this case moves forward.” And so that basically continues to be the case. Some of the arguments are getting sent back down to the lower court for further consideration. And we still don’t know whether either side will appeal the 5th Circuit’s ruling to the Supreme Court.

Rovner: But notably, the appeals court said that U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which is appointed by the Department of Health and Human Services, is basically illegally constituted because it should be nominated by the president, approved by the Senate, which it is not. That could in the long run be kind of a big deal. This is a group of experts that supposedly shielded from politics.

Kenen: Yeah, I don’t think this story is over either. It is for now. Right now we’re at the status quo, except for this handful of people who brought recommendations on all sorts of health measures, including vaccination and cancer screenings and everything else. They stand. They’re not being contested at this moment. How that will evolve under the next administration and this court remains to be seen.

Rovner: Finally, finally, finally, to end on a bit of a frustrating note, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, has found that two decades after it first called out some of the most egregious inequities in U.S. health care, not that much has changed. Joanne, this has been a very high-profile issue. What went wrong?

Kenen: Well, I think this report got very little attention probably because it’s like, oh, reports aren’t necessarily news stories. And it was like nothing changed, so why do we report it? But I think when I read the report — and I did not get through all 375 pages yet, but I did read a significant amount of it and I listened to a webinar on it — I think what really struck me is how we’re not any better than we really were 20 years ago. And what really was jarring is the report said, “And we actually know how to fix this and we’re not doing it. And we have the scientific and public health and sociological knowledge. We know if we wanted to fix it, we could, and we haven’t. Some of that is needing money and some of it is needing will.” So I thought the bottom line of it was really quite grim. If we didn’t know how bad it was, if the general public didn’t know how bad it was, the pandemic really should have taught them that because of the enormous disparities, and we’re back on this glide path toward nothing.

Rovner: I do think at very least, it is more talked about. It’s a little higher profile than it was, but obviously you’re right.

Kenen: They didn’t say no gains in any… I mean, the ACA helped. There are people who have coverage, including minorities, who didn’t have it before. That was one of the bright spots. But there’s still 10 states where it hasn’t been fully implemented. It was a pretty discouraging report.

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

Knight: Sure. So I was reading a story in The New York Times about PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers]. It was called “The Opaque Industry Secretly Inflating Prices for Prescription Drugs.” It’s by Rebecca Robbins and Reed Abelson. And so it kind of is basically an investigation into PBM practices. It was interesting for me because I cover health care in Congress, and so it’s always the different industries are fighting each other. And right now, one of the biggest fights is about PBMs. And for those that don’t know, PBMs negotiate with drug companies, they’re supposed to pay pharmacies, they help patients get their medications. And so they’re this middleman in between everyone. And so people don’t really know they exist, but they’re a big monopoly. There’s only three of them, really big ones in the U.S. that make up 80% of the market. And so they have a lot of control over things.

Pharma blames them for high drug prices and the PBMs blame pharma. So that’s always a fun thing to watch. There actually is quite a bit of traction in Congress right now for cracking down on PBM practices. Basically, The Times reporters interviewed a bunch of people and they came away with saying that PBMs …

Rovner: They interviewed like 300 people, right?

Knight: Yes, it said 300.

Rovner: A large bunch.

Knight: Yeah, and they came away with a conclusion that PBMs are causing higher drug prices and they’re pushing patients towards higher drugs. They’re charging employers of government more money than they should be. But it was interesting for me to watch this play out on Twitter because the PBM lobby was, of course, very upset by the story. They were slamming it and they put out a whole press release saying that it’s anecdotal and they don’t have actual data. So it was interesting, but I think it’s another piece in the policy puzzle of how do we reduce drug prices? And Congress thinks at least cracking on PBMs is one way to do it, and it has bipartisan support.

Rovner: And apparently this story is the first in a series, so there’s more to come.

Knight: Yes, I saw that. Yeah, more to come, so it’ll be fun. I also just noticed as I was just pulling it up on my phone and they had closed the comment section. It was causing some robust debate.

Rovner: Yes, indeed. Joanne?

Kenen: I should just say that after I read that story in The Times that same day, I think I got a phone call from a relative, a copay that had been something like $60 for 30 days is now $1,000. And this relative walked away without getting the drug because that’s not OK. So anyway, my extra credit [“Social Security To Drop Obsolete Jobs Used To Deny Disability Benefits,”] is from The Washington Post. Lisa Rein posted an investigation a couple of years ago, and this was the coda of the Social Security Administration finally followed through on what that investigation revealed. And Lisa wrote about the move, how it’s being addressed. That to get disability benefits, you have to be unemployable basically. And the Social Security Administration had a list of … it’s called the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. It had not been updated in 47 years. So disabled people were being denied Social Security disability benefits because they were being told, well, they could do jobs like being a nut sorter or a pneumatic tube operator or a microfilm something or other. And these jobs stopped existing decades ago.

So the Social Security Administration got rid of these obsolete jobs. You’re no longer being told, literally, to go store nuts. If you are, in fact, legitimately disabled, you’ll now be able to get the Social Security disability benefits that you are, in fact, qualified for. So thousands of people will be affected.

Rovner: No one can see this, but I’m wearing my America Needs Journalists T-shirt today. Alice?

Ollstein: I chose a piece [“Opioid Deaths Rose 50 Percent During the Pandemic. in These Places, They Fell”] by my colleague Ruth Reader, about a county in Ohio that, with some federal funds, implemented all of these policies to reduce opioid overdoses and deaths, and they had a lot of success. Overdoses went down 20% there, even as they went up by a lot in most of the country. But bureaucracy and expiring funding means that those programs may not continue, even though they’re really successful. The federal funding has run out. It is not getting renewed, and the state may not pick up the slack.

So it’s just a really good example. We see this so often in public health where we invest in something, it works, it makes a difference, it helps people, and then we say, “Well, all right, we did it. We’re done.” And then the problems come roaring back. So hopefully that does not happen here.

Rovner: Alas. Well, my extra credit this week is from The Washington Post. It’s called “Masks Are Going From Mandated to Criminalized in Some States.” It’s by Fenit Nirappil. I hope I’m pronouncing that right. In some ways, it’s a response to criminals who have obviously long used masks, and also to protesters, particularly those protesting the war in Gaza. But it’s also a mark of just how intolerant we’ve become as a society that people who are immunocompromised or just worried about their own health can’t go out masked in public without getting harassed. The irony, of course, is that this is all coming just as covid is having what appears to be now its annual summer surge, and the big fight of the moment is in North Carolina where the Democratic governor has vetoed a mask ban bill, that’s likely to be overridden by the Republican legislature. Even after covid is no longer front and center in our everyday lives, apparently a lot of the nastiness remains.

All right, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcast. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comment or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at Twitter, which the Supreme Court has now decided it’s going to call Twitter. I’m @jrovner. Alice?

Ollstein: I’m @AliceOllstein on X.

Rovner: Victoria?

Knight: I’m @victoriaregisk.

Rovner: Joanne?

Kenen: I’m at Twitter, @JoanneKenen. And I’m on Threads @joannekenen1, and I occasionally decided I just have better things to do.

Rovner: It’s all good. We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Charlotte, Carolina del Norte. — Cuatro meses después de buscar asilo en Estados Unidos, Fernando Hermida comenzó a toser y a sentirse cansado. Primero pensó que estaba resfriado. Luego aparecieron llagas en su ingle y empezó a empapar su cama de sudor. Se hizo una prueba.

El día de Año Nuevo de 2022, a los 31 años, supo que tenía VIH.

“Pensé que me iba a morir”, dijo, recordando el escalofrío que le recorrió el cuerpo cuando revisaba sus resultados. Luchó por navegar un nuevo y complicado sistema de atención médica. A través de una organización de VIH que encontró en internet, recibió una lista de proveedores médicos en Washington, DC, donde estaba en ese momento. Pero no le devolvieron las llamadas durante semanas.

Hermida, que solo habla español, no sabía a dónde ir.

Para cuando Hermida recibió su diagnóstico, el Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos de Estados Unidos (HHS) llevaba adelante desde hacía unos tres años una iniciativa federal para acabar con la epidemia de VIH en la nación, invirtiendo cada año cientos de millones de dólares en ciertos estados, condados y territorios con las tasas de infección más altas.  

El objetivo era llegar a las aproximadamente 1.2 millones de personas que viven con VIH, incluidas algunas que ni siquiera lo saben.

En general, las tasas estimadas de nuevas infecciones por VIH han disminuido un 23% desde 2012 hasta 2022. Pero un análisis de KFF Health News y Associated Press comprobó que la tasa no ha bajado para los latinos (que pueden ser de cualquier raza) tanto como para otros grupos raciales y étnicos.

Si bien en general los afroamericanos continúan teniendo las tasas más altas de VIH en el país, los latinos representaron la mayor parte de los nuevos diagnósticos e infecciones de VIH entre hombres gays y bisexuales en 2022, según los datos disponibles más recientes, en comparación con otros grupos raciales y étnicos.

Los latinos, que constituyen aproximadamente el 19% de la población de Estados Unidos, representaron alrededor del 33% de las nuevas infecciones por VIH, según los Centros para el Control y Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC). El análisis halló que los latinos están experimentando un número desproporcionado de nuevas infecciones y diagnósticos en todo el país, con las tasas de diagnóstico más altas en el sureste.

Oficiales de salud pública en el condado de Mecklenburg, en Carolina del Norte, y el condado de Shelby, en Tennessee, donde los datos muestran que las tasas de diagnóstico han aumentado entre los latinos, dijeron a KFF Health News y AP que no tienen planes específicos para abordar el problema del VIH en esta población, o que éstos aún no se han finalizado.

Incluso en lugares con buena cantidad de recursos como San Francisco, en California, las tasas de diagnóstico de VIH aumentaron entre los latinos en los últimos años mientras disminuían entre otros grupos raciales y étnicos, a pesar de los objetivos del condado de reducir las infecciones entre los latinos.

“Las disparidades de VIH no son inevitables”, dijo en un comunicado Robyn Neblett Fanfair, directora de la División de Prevención del VIH de los CDC. Señaló las inequidades sistémicas, culturales y económicas, como el racismo, las diferencias de idioma y la desconfianza en los médicos.

Y aunque los CDC proporcionan algunos fondos para grupos minoritarios, defensores de las políticas de salud para los latinos quieren que el HHS declare una emergencia de salud pública con la esperanza de dirigir más dinero a las comunidades latinas, argumentando que los esfuerzos actuales no son suficientes.

“Nuestra invisibilidad ya no es tolerable”, dijo Vincent Guilamo-Ramos, co-presidente del Consejo Asesor Presidencial sobre VIH/SIDA.

Perdido sin un intérprete

Hermida sospecha que contrajo el virus mientras estaba en una relación abierta con un compañero masculino antes de llegar a Estados Unidos. A fines de enero de 2022, meses después que comenzaran sus síntomas, fue a una clínica en la ciudad de Nueva York que un amigo lo ayudó a encontrar para finalmente recibir tratamiento para el VIH.

Demasiado enfermo para cuidarse solo, Hermida finalmente se mudó a Charlotte, Carolina del Norte, para estar más cerca de su familia y con la esperanza de recibir atención médica más constante. Se inscribió en una clínica de Amity Medical Group que recibe fondos del Programa Ryan White de VIH/SIDA, un plan de la red de seguridad federal que atiende a más de la mitad de los diagnosticados con VIH en la nación, independientemente de su estatus migratorio.

Después que se conectó con gestores de casos, su VIH se volvió indetectable. Pero dijo que, con el tiempo, la comunicación con la clínica se volvió menos frecuente y no recibía ayuda regular de un intérprete durante las visitas con su médico, que hablaba inglés.

Un representante de Amity confirmó que Hermida fue cliente, pero no respondió preguntas sobre su experiencia en la clínica.

Hermida dijo que tuvo dificultades para completar el papeleo para mantenerse inscrito en el programa Ryan White, y cuando su elegibilidad expiró, en septiembre de 2023, no pudo obtener su medicación.

Dejó la clínica y se inscribió en un plan de salud a través del mercado de seguros de la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA). Pero Hermida no se dio cuenta que la aseguradora le exigía pagar una parte de su tratamiento para el VIH.

En enero, el conductor de Lyft recibió una factura de $1,275 por su antirretroviral, el equivalente a 120 viajes, dijo. Pagó la factura con un cupón que encontró en línea. En abril, recibió una segunda cuenta que no pudo pagar. Durante dos semanas, dejó de tomar la medicación que mantiene al virus indetectable, y por ende no transmisible.

“Estoy que colapso”, dijo. “Tengo que vivir para pagar la medicación”. Una forma de prevenir el VIH es la profilaxis previa a la exposición, o PrEP, que se toma regularmente para reducir el riesgo de contraer el VIH a través del sexo o el uso de drogas intravenosas. Fue aprobada por el gobierno federal en 2012, pero la adopción no ha sido uniforme entre los diferentes grupos raciales y étnicos: los datos de los CDC muestran tasas de cobertura de PrEP mucho más bajas entre los latinos que entre los estadounidenses blancos no hispanos.

Los epidemiólogos dicen que el buen uso de PrEP y el acceso constante al tratamiento son necesarios para construir resistencia a nivel comunitario.

Carlos Saldana, especialista en enfermedades infecciosas y ex asesor médico del Departamento de Salud de Georgia, ayudó a identificar cinco grupos de transmisión rápida de VIH que involucró a unos 40 latinos gay y hombres que tienen sexo con hombres desde febrero de 2021 hasta junio de 2022. Muchas personas en el grupo dijeron a los investigadores que no habían tomado PrEP y que les resultaba difícil entender el sistema de salud.

Saldana dijo que también experimentaron otras barreras, incluida la falta de transporte y el miedo a la deportación si buscaban tratamiento.

Defensores de políticas de salud para los latinos quieren que el gobierno federal redistribuya los fondos para la prevención del VIH, incluyendo pruebas y acceso a PrEP. De los casi $30 mil millones en dinero federal que se destinaron a servicios de atención médica para el VIH, tratamiento y prevención en 2022, solo el 4% se dirigió a la prevención, según un análisis de KFF.

Los defensores sugieren que más dinero podría ayudar a llegar a las comunidades latinas a través de esfuerzos como la divulgación basada en la fe en iglesias, pruebas en clubes durante fiestas latinas, y en capacitar a personal bilingüe para que realice las pruebas.

Aumentan las tasas latinas

El Congreso ha asignado $2.3 mil millones a lo largo de cinco años para la iniciativa Ending the HIV Epidemic, y las jurisdicciones que reciben el dinero deben invertir el 25% en organizaciones comunitarias.

Pero esta iniciativa no requiere dirigirse a determinados grupos, incluidos los latinos: delega en las ciudades, condados y estados la tarea de idear estrategias específicas.

En 34 de las 57 áreas que reciben dinero, los casos van en la dirección equivocada: las tasas de diagnóstico entre los latinos aumentaron de 2019 a 2022 mientras que disminuían en otros grupos raciales y étnicos, halló el análisis de KFF Health News-AP.

A partir del 1 de agosto, los departamentos de salud estatales y locales deberán presentar informes anuales de gastos sobre el financiamiento en lugares que representan el 30% o más de los diagnósticos de VIH, dijeron los CDC. Antes, solo se requería esto en un pequeño número de estados.

En algunos estados y condados, el financiamiento de la iniciativa no ha sido suficiente para cubrir las necesidades de los latinos. Carolina del Sur, que vio las tasas entre latinos casi duplicarse de 2012 a 2022, no ha expandido las pruebas móviles de VIH en áreas rurales, donde la necesidad es alta entre los latinos, dijo Tony Price, gerente del programa de VIH en el departamento de salud del estado.

Carolina del Sur solo puede pagar a cuatro trabajadores comunitarios de salud enfocados en la divulgación sobre el VIH, y no todos son bilingües.

En el condado de Shelby, Tennessee, hogar de Memphis, la tasa de diagnóstico de VIH entre los latinos aumentó un 86% de 2012 a 2022. El Departamento de Salud dijo que recibió $2 millones en financiamiento de la iniciativa en 2023 y, aunque el plan del condado reconoce que los latinos son un grupo objeto, la directora del departamento, Michelle Taylor, dijo: “No hay campañas específicas solo entre los latinos”.

Hasta ahora, el condado de Mecklenburg, en Carolina del Norte, no incluyó objetivos específicos para abordar el VIH en la población latina, donde las tasas de nuevos diagnósticos se han más que duplicado en una década, pero disminuyeron ligeramente entre otros grupos raciales y étnicos.

El departamento de salud ha utilizado fondos para campañas de marketing bilingües y concientización sobre la PrEP.

Mudarse por la medicina

Cuando llegó el momento para Hermida de empacar y mudarse a la tercera ciudad en dos años, su prometido, que está tomando PrEP, sugirió buscar atención en Orlando, Florida.

La pareja, que eran amigos en la escuela secundaria en Venezuela, tenía algunos familiares y amigos en Florida, y habían escuchado sobre Pineapple Healthcare, una clínica de atención primaria sin fines de lucro dedicada a apoyar a los latinos que viven con VIH.

La clínica está en un consultorio al sur del centro de Orlando. El personal, mayoritariamente latino, viste camisetas turquesa con estampado de piñas, y se escucha con más frecuencia español que inglés en los cuartos de atención y en los pasillos.

“En su esencia, si la organización no es dirigida por y para personas de color, entonces solo somos una idea de último momento”, dijo Andres Acosta Ardila, director de divulgación comunitaria en Pineapple Healthcare, quien fue diagnosticado con VIH en 2013.

“¿Te mudaste reciente [mente], ya por fin?”, preguntó la enfermera Eliza Otero, quien comenzó a tratar a Hermida cuando todavía vivía en Charlotte. “Hace un mes desde la última vez que nos vimos”.

Todavía necesitan trabajar en bajar su colesterol y presión arterial, le dijo. Aunque su carga viral sigue siendo alta, Otero dijo que debería mejorar con atención regular y constante.

Pineapple Healthcare, que no recibe dinero de la iniciativa federal, ofrece atención primaria completa principalmente a hombres latinos. Allí, Hermida obtiene su medicación para el VIH sin costo porque la clínica es parte de un programa federal de descuento de medicamentos.

En muchos sentidos, la clínica es un oasis. La tasa de nuevos diagnósticos para los latinos en el condado de Orange, Florida, que incluye Orlando, aumentó alrededor de un tercio desde 2012 hasta 2022, mientras que disminuyó un tercio para otros. Florida tiene la tercera población latina más grande de Estados Unidos y tuvo la séptima tasa más alta de nuevos diagnósticos de VIH entre latinos en la nación en 2022.

Hermida, que tiene pendiente su caso de asilo, nunca imaginó que obtener medicación sería tan difícil, dijo durante el viaje de 500 millas de Carolina del Norte a Florida. Después de habitaciones de hotel, trabajos perdidos y despedidas familiares, espera que su búsqueda de tratamiento consistente para el VIH, que ha definido su vida en los últimos dos años, finalmente pueda llegar a su fin.

“Soy un nómade a la fuerza, pero bueno, como dicen mi prometido y mis familiares, yo tengo que estar donde me den buenos servicios médicos”, dijo.

Esa es la prioridad ahora, agregó.

KFF Health News y The Associated Press analizaron datos de los Centros para el Control y Prevención de Enfermedades de Estado Unidos sobre el número de nuevos diagnósticos e infecciones de VIH entre estadounidenses de 13 años y más a nivel local, estatal y nacional.

Esta historia utiliza principalmente datos de tasas de incidencia —estimaciones de nuevas infecciones— a nivel nacional y datos de tasas de diagnóstico a nivel estatal y de condados.

Bose produjo esta historia desde Orlando, Florida. Reese, desde Sacramento, California. La periodista de video Laura Bargfeld colaboró con este informe.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department recibe apoyo de la Fundación Robert Wood Johnson. AP es responsable de todo el contenido.

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

Un proyecto de KFF Health News y The Associated PressCo-publicado por Univisión Noticias

CRÉDITOS

Reporteros:Vanessa G. SánchezDevna BosePhillip ReeseCinematografía:Laura BargfeldFotografía:Laura BargfeldPhelan M. EbenhackEdición de video:Federica NarancioKathy YoungEsther PovedaVideo adicional:Federica NarancioEsther PovedaProducción de video:Eric HarkleroadLydia Zuraw

Editores:Judy LinErica HunzingerEditor de datos:Holly HackerRedes sociales:Patricia VélezFederica NarancioEsther PovedaCarolina AstuyaNatalia BravoJuan Pablo VargasKyle ViterboSophia EppolitoHannah NormanChaseedaw GilesTarena LoftonTraducción:Paula Andalo Corrección:Gabe Brison-Trezise

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

A unanimous Supreme Court turned back a challenge to the FDA’s approval and rules for the abortion pill mifepristone, finding that the anti-abortion doctor group that sued lacked standing to do so. But abortion foes have other ways they intend to curtail availability of the pill, which is commonly used in medication abortions, which now make up nearly two-thirds of abortions in the U.S.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration is proposing regulations that would bar credit agencies from including medical debt on individual credit reports. And former President Donald Trump, signaling that drug prices remain a potent campaign issue, attempts to take credit for the $35-a-month cap on insulin for Medicare beneficiaries — which was backed and signed into law by Biden.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Rachana Pradhan of KFF Health News, and Emmarie Huetteman of KFF Health News.

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg

@annaedney

Read Anna's stories.

Emmarie Huetteman
KFF Health News

@emmarieDC

Read Emmarie's stories.

Rachana Pradhan
KFF Health News

@rachanadpradhan

Read Rachana's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• All nine Supreme Court justices on June 13 rejected a challenge to the abortion pill mifepristone, ruling the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue. But that may not be the last word: The decision leaves open the possibility that different plaintiffs — including three states already part of the case — could raise a similar challenge in the future, and that the court could then vote to block access to the pill.
• As the presidential race heats up, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are angling for health care voters. The Biden administration this week proposed eliminating all medical debt from Americans’ credit scores, which would expand on the previous, voluntary move by the major credit agencies to erase from credit reports medical bills under $500. Meanwhile, Trump continues to court vaccine skeptics and wrongly claimed credit for Medicare’s $35 monthly cap on insulin — enacted under a law backed and signed by Biden.
• Problems are compounding at the pharmacy counter. Pharmacists and drugmakers are reporting the highest numbers of drug shortages in more than 20 years. And independent pharmacists in particular say they are struggling to keep drugs on the shelves, pointing to a recent Biden administration policy change that reduces costs for seniors — but also cash flow for pharmacies.
• And the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest branch of Protestantism, voted this week to restrict the use of in vitro fertilization. As evidenced by recent flip-flopping stances on abortion, Republican candidates are feeling pressed to satisfy a wide range of perspectives within even their own party.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF president and CEO Drew Altman about KFF’s new “Health Policy 101” primer. You can learn more about it here.

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

Julie Rovner: HuffPost’s “How America’s Mental Health Crisis Became This Family’s Worst Nightmare,” by Jonathan Cohn.

Anna Edney: Stat News’ “Four Tops Singer’s Lawsuit Says He Visited ER for Chest Pain, Ended Up in Straitjacket,” by Tara Bannow.

Rachana Pradhan: The New York Times’ “Abortion Groups Say Tech Companies Suppress Posts and Accounts,” by Emily Schmall and Sapna Maheshwari.

Emmarie Huetteman: CBS News’ “As FDA Urges Crackdown on Bird Flu in Raw Milk, Some States Say Their Hands Are Tied,” by Alexander Tin.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• Bloomberg News’ “Dozens of CVS Generic Drug Recalls Expose Link to Tainted Factories,” by Anna Edney and Peter Robison.
• KFF Health News’ “Biden Plan To Save Medicare Patients Money on Drugs Risks Empty Shelves, Pharmacists Say,” by Susan Jaffe.
• KFF Health News’ “More States Legalize Sales of Unpasteurized Milk, Despite Public Health Warnings,” by Tony Leys.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: SCOTUS Rejects Abortion Pill Challenge — For Now

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’ Episode Title: ‘SCOTUS Rejects Abortion Pill Challenge — For Now’Episode Number: 351Published: June 13, 2024

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

Mila Atmos: The future of America is in your hands. This is not a movie trailer and it’s not a political ad, but it is a call to action. I’m Mila Atmos and I’m passionate about unlocking the power of everyday citizens. On our podcast “Future Hindsight,” we take big ideas about civic life and democracy and turn them into action items for you and me. Every Thursday we talk to bold activists and civic innovators to help you understand your power and your power to change the status quo. Find us at futurehindsight.com or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, June 13, at 10:30 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this, so here we go.

We are joined today via video conference by Anna Edney of Bloomberg News.

Anna Edney: Hi there.

Rovner: Rachana Pradhan of KFF Health News.

Rachana Pradhan: Hello.

Rovner: And Emmarie Huetteman, also of KFF Health News.

Emmarie Huetteman: Good morning.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with KFF President and CEO Drew Altman, who I honestly can’t believe hasn’t been on the podcast before. He is here to talk about “Health Policy 101,” which is KFF’s all-new, all-in-one introductory guide to health policy. But first, this week’s news.

So, as we tape, we have breaking news from the Supreme Court about that case challenging the abortion pill mifepristone. And you know how we always say you can’t predict what the court is going to do by listening to the oral arguments? Well, occasionally you can, and this was one of those times the court watchers were correct. The justices ruled unanimously that the anti-abortion doctors who brought the suit against the pill lack standing to sue. So the suit has been dismissed, wrote Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh, who wrote the unanimous opinion for the court: “A plaintiff’s desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue.” So, might anybody have standing? Have we not maybe heard the end of this case?

Edney: Yeah, I think certainly there could be someone else who could decide to do that. I mean, just quickly looking around when this came out, it seems like maybe state AGs [attorneys general] could take this up, so it doesn’t seem like it’s the last of it. I also quickly saw a statement from Sen. [Bill] Cassidy, a Republican, who mentioned this wasn’t a ruling on the merits exactly of the case, but just that these doctors don’t have standing. So it does seem like there would be efforts to bring it back.

Rovner: This is not going to be the last challenge to the abortion pill.

Edney: Yeah.

Pradhan: Just looking in my inbox this morning after the decision, I mean it’s clear the anti-abortion groups are really not done yet. So I think there’s going to be a lot of pressure, of course, from them. It is an election year, so they’re trying to get, notch wins as far as races go, but also to get various AGs to keep going on this.

Rovner: And if you listen to last week’s podcast, there are three AGs who are already part of this case, so they may take it back with the district court judge in Texas. We shall see. Anyway, more Supreme Court decisions to come.

But moving on to campaign 2024 because, and this seems impossible, the first presidential debate is just two weeks away.President [Joe] Biden is still struggling to convince the public that he’s doing things that they support. Along those lines, this week the administration proposed rules that would ban medical debt from being included in calculating people’s credit scores. I thought that had happened already. What would this do that hasn’t already been done?

Huetteman: Well, last year the big credit agencies volunteered to cut medical debt that’s below $500 from people’s credit reports. Of course, there’s a lot of evidence that shows that that’s not really the way that people get hurt with their credit scores, they get hurt when they have big medical bills. So this addresses a major concern that a lot of Americans have with paying for health care in the United States.

I oversee our “Bill of the Month” project with NPR and I can say that a lot of Americans will pay their medical bills without question, even for fear of harm to their credit score, even if they think that their bill might be wrong. Also, it’s worth noting also that researchers have found that medical debt does not accurately predict whether an individual is credit-worthy, actually, which is unlike other kinds of debt that you’d find on credit scores.

Rovner: So yeah, not paying your car payment suggests what you might or might not be able to do with a mortgage or a credit card. But not paying your surprise medical bill, maybe not so much?

Huetteman: Yes, exactly. Really, we can all end up in the emergency room with a big bill. You don’t get a big bill just because you have trouble meeting your credit card bills or you have trouble meeting your car payments, for example.

Rovner: We’ll see if this one resonates with the public because a lot of the things that the administration has done have not. Meanwhile, President [Donald] Trump, who presided over one of the most rapid and successful vaccine development projects ever, for the covid vaccine, now seems to be moving more firmly into the anti-vax camp, and it’s not just apparently anti-covid vaccine. Trump said at a rally last month that he would strip federal funding from schools with vaccine mandates — any vaccines apparently, like measles and mumps and polio — and he says he would do it by executive order. No legislation required. This feels like it could have some pretty major consequences if he followed through on this. Anna, I see you nodding. You have a toddler.

Edney: Right, right. I was just thinking about that going into kindergarten, what that could mean, and there’s just so many … I mean, even kids don’t have to get chickenpox nowadays. That seems like a really great thing. I don’t know. I mean, I had chickenpox. I think that it could take us backwards, obviously, into a time that we’re seeing pockets of as measles crops up in certain places and things like that. I’d be curious. What I don’t know is how much federal funding supports a lot of these schools. I know there’s state funding, county funding, how much that’s actually taking away if it would change the minds of certain ones. But I guess if you’re in maybe a state that doesn’t like vaccines in the first place, it’s a free-for-all to go ahead and do that.

Pradhan: One of the questions I have, too, is through the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] we have the Vaccines for Children Program, which provides free immunizations to children for a lot of these infectious diseases, for children who are either uninsured or underinsured or low-income. And so that’s been a really long-standing program and I’m very curious as to whether they would try to maybe reduce or eliminate a bunch of the vaccines that are provided through that, which obviously could affect a significant number of children nationwide.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s funny, the anti-vax movement has been around for, I don’t know, 20, 25 years; whenever that Lancet piece that later got rescinded came out that connected vaccines to autism. It seems it’s getting a boost and, yes, that’s an intended pun right now. I guess covid, and the doubts about covid, is pushing onto these other vaccines, too.

Edney: I think that we’ve certainly seen that. Before covid, at least my understanding of a lot of the concerns around the behavioral issues and autism linked to vaccines or things like that was more of the left-wing, maybe crunchier people who were seeing it as not wanting to put, in their words, poison in their bodies. But now we’re seeing this also right-wing opposition to it, and I think that’s certainly linked to covid. Any mandate at this point from the government is pushed back against more so than before.

Rovner: Well, we have lots of news this week on drugs and drug prices. Anna, you have quite the story about how trying to save money by buying generic might not always be the best move? As I describe it: the scary story of the week. Tell us about it.

Edney: Yes. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I did this data dive looking into store-brand medication. So when you go into CVS or Walgreens, for example, you can see the Tylenol brand name there, but next to it you’ve got one that looks a lot like it, but it’s got CVS Health or Walgreens on the name and it costs usually a few dollars less. What I found is that of those store brands, CVS has a lot more recalls than the rest, even though they’re selling these same store-brand drugs. So they have two to three times more recalls than Walgreens and Walmart. And what’s happening is they are more often going to shady contract manufacturers to make their generic products that they’re selling over the counter. I found one that was making kids’ medication with contaminated water. And then the really disturbing one that was nasal sprays for babies on the same machines that this company was using to make pesticides. And just wrote about a whole litany of these kinds of companies that CVS is hiring at a higher rate than the other two — Walgreens and Walmart — that I was able to do the data dive on.

And interestingly, these store brands have a loophole, so they’re not responsible for the quality of those medications, even though their name’s on it. They can just walk away and say, “Well, we put it on the shelves. We agree with that, but it’s up to these companies that are making it to verify the quality.” And so, that’s usually not how this works. Even if there’s contract manufacturers, which a lot of drugmakers use, they usually have to also verify the quality. But store brands are considered just distributors, and so there’s this separation of who even owns the responsibility for this drug.

Pradhan: Yeah, I think a collective reaction reading this. I know, how many people did I text your story to Anna, saying, “Yikes! … FYI.”

Rovner: So on the one hand, you get what you pay for. On the other hand, price is not the only problem that we find with drugs. A new study from the University of Utah Drug Information Service just found that pharmacists are reporting the largest number of drugs in shortage since the turn of the century. And my colleague Susan Jaffe has a story on how some shortages are being exacerbated at the pharmacy level by a new Medicare rule that was intended to lower prices for patients at the counter.

Anna, how close are we to the point where the drug distribution system is just going to collapse in on itself? It does not seem to be working very well.

Edney: Yeah, it does feel that way because I always think of that example of the long balloon and when you squeeze it at one end the other end gets bigger. Because when you’re trying to help patients at the counter, somebody’s taking that hit, that money isn’t just appearing out of thin air in their pockets. So the pharmacists are saying — and particularly smaller pharmacies, but also some of the bigger ones — are saying the way that these drugs are now being reimbursed, how that’s working under this new effort, is they don’t have as much cash on hand, so they’re having trouble getting these big brand-name drugs. It was a really interesting story that Susan wrote. Just shows that you can’t fix one end of it, you need to fix the whole thing somehow. I don’t know how you do that.

And shortages are another issue just of other kinds, whether it’s quality issues or whether it’s the demand is growing for a lot of these drugs, and depending even on the time of year. So I think we’re all seeing it just appear to be disintegrating and hoping that there’s just no tragedy or big disaster where we really need to rely on it.

Rovner: Yeah, like, you know, another pandemic.

Edney: Exactly.

Rovner: There’s also some good news on the drug front. An FDA [Food and Drug Administration] advisory committee this week recommended approval for yet another potential Alzheimer’s drug, donanemab, I think I’m pronouncing that right. I guess we’ll learn more as we go on. The drug appears to have better evidence that it actually slows the progression of the disease without the risks of Aduhelm, the controversial drug approved by the FDA that’s been discontinued by its manufacturer. This would be the second promising drug to be approved following Leqembi last year. When we first started talking about Aduhelm — what was that, two years ago — we talked about how it could break Medicare financially because so many people would be eligible for such an expensive drug. So now we’re looking at maybe having two drugs like this and I don’t hear people talking about the potential costs anymore.

Is there a reason why or are we just worried about other things?

Edney: Well, I think there’s a benefit that they seem to have proven more than Aduhelm. But there’s also still a risk of brain swelling and bleeding, and that I’m sure would factor into someone’s decision of whether they want to try this. So maybe people aren’t exactly flocking in the same way to want to get these drugs. As they’re used more, maybe that changes and we see more of “Can you spot the swelling? Can you stop it?” And things like that. But I think that there just seems to be a lot of questions around them. Also, Aduhelm was the biggest one, which obviously Medicare didn’t cover, and then they’re not even trying to sell anymore. But I think that there’s just always questions about how they’re tested, how much benefit really there is. Is a few months worth that risk that you could have a major brain issue?

Rovner: While we are on the subject of drugs and drug prices, we have “This Week in Misinformation” from former President Trump, who as we all know, likes to take credit for things that are not his and deflect blame from things that are. Now in a post on his Truth Social platform, he says that he is the one who lowered insulin copayments to $35 a month, and that President Biden “had nothing to do with it.” Yes, the Trump administration did offer a voluntary $35 copayment program for Medicare Part D plans, but it was limited. It was time-limited and not all the plans adopted it. President Biden actually didn’t do the $35 copay either, but he did propose and sign the law that Congress passed that did it. It was part of the Inflation Reduction Act. Ironically, President Biden didn’t get all he wanted either. The intent was to limit insulin copayments for all patients, but so far, it’s only for those on Medicare. I would guess that Trump is saying this to try to neutralize one of the few issues that maybe is getting through to the public about something that President Biden did.

Pradhan: Well, I mean, I think even during President Trump’s first term, I mean lowering drug prices, he made it very clear that that was something that was important to him. He certainly wasn’t following the traditional or older Republican Party’s friendliness to the pharmaceutical industry. I mean, he was openly antagonizing them a lot, and so it’s certainly something that I think he understands resonates with people. And it’s a pocketbook issue similar to what’s going on on medical debt that we talked about earlier, right? These new regulations that are being proposed — they may not be finalized, we’ll have to see about that because of the timing — but these are things that are, I think at the end of the day, of course, are very relatable to people. Unlike, perhaps, abortion is a big campaign issue, but it’s not necessarily going to resonate with people in the same way and certainly not potentially men and women in the same way. But I think that there’s much more broad-based understanding of having to pay a lot for medications and potentially not being able to afford it. Obviously, insulin is probably the best poster child for a lot of reasons for that. So no surprise he wants to take credit for it, and also perhaps that it’s not really what happened, so …

Rovner: If nothing else, I think it signals that drug prices are still going to be a big issue in this campaign.

Pradhan: For sure. And I mean Joe Biden has made it very clear. I mean the Inflation Reduction Act of course included other measures to lower people’s out-of-pocket costs for drugs, which he’s very eagerly touting on the trail right now to shore up support.

Rovner: Let’s move on from drugs to abortion via the FDA spending bill on Capitol Hill this week. The annual appropriations bills are starting to move in House committees, which is notable itself because this is when they are supposed to start moving if they’re going to get done by Oct. 1, the start of the next fiscal year. We haven’t seen that in a long time. So last year Republicans got hung up because they wanted their leaders to attach all manner of policy riders to the spending bills, most of them aimed at abortion, which can’t get through the Senate. Well in a big shift, Republicans appear to be backing off of that, and the current version of the bill that funds the Department of Agriculture, as well as the FDA, does not include language trying to ban or further restrict the abortion pill mifepristone. Of course, that could still change, but my impression is that the new [House] Appropriations chairman, [Rep.] Tom Cole, who’s very much a pragmatist, wants to get his bills signed into law.

Pradhan: I do wonder, though, if because of the Supreme Court decision that just came out today, whether that will change the calculation, or at the very least, the pressure that he is under to include something in the FDA bill. But as you know, there’s plenty of time for abortion riders to make it in or out. I feel like this is, it’s like Groundhog Day. Usually something related to abortion policy will upend various pieces of legislation. So I’ll be curious to be on the lookout for that, whether it changes anything.

Rovner: Anna, were you surprised that they left it out, at least at the start?

Edney: Yeah, I think you’re just what we’ve seen with all of the rancor around abortion and abortion-related issues, I guess a little surprised. But also maybe it makes sense in just the sense that there are Republicans who are struggling with that issue and don’t want to have to keep talking about it or voting on it in the same way.

Rovner: Well, that leads right to my next subject, which is that the Senate is voting this afternoon, after we tape, on a bill that would guarantee access to IVF. Republicans are expected to block it as they did last week on the bill to guarantee access to contraception. But as of Wednesday, it’s going to be harder for Republicans to say they’re voting against the bill because no one is threatening to block IVF. That’s because the influential Southern Baptist Convention, one of the nation’s largest evangelical groups, voted, if not to ban IVF, at least to restrict the number of embryos that can be created and ban their destruction, which doctors say would make the treatments more expensive and less successful. It sounds like the rift among conservatives over contraception and IVF is a long way from getting settled here.

Huetteman: That certainly seems to be true. It’s also worth noting that there are a lot of influential members of Congress who are Baptist, of course, including House Speaker Mike Johnson. And I was refreshing my memory of the religious background of the current Congress with a Pew report: They say 67 members of this Congress are Baptist. Of course, Southern Baptist is the largest piece of that. And 148 are Catholic, which of course is another denomination that opposes IVF as well. So that’s a pretty big constituency that has their churches telling them that they oppose IVF and should, too.

Rovner: Yeah, everybody says they’re not coming for contraception, they’re not coming for IVF. I think we’re going to see a very spirited and continued debate over both of those things.

Well, speaking of the rift over reproductive health, former President Trump is struggling to please both sides and not really succeeding at it. He made a video address last week to the evangelical group, The Danbury Institute, which is a conservative subset of the aforementioned Southern Baptist Convention, in which former President Trump didn’t use the word abortion and skirted the issue. That prompted some grumbling from some of the attendees, reported Politico. Even as Democrats called him an anti-abortion radical for even speaking to the group, which has labeled abortion “child sacrifice.”

So far, Trump has gotten away with telling audiences what they want to hear, even if he contradicts himself regularly. But I feel like abortion is maybe the one issue where that’s not going to work.

Pradhan: Well, I think the struggle really is even if people are more forgiving of him saying different things, it puts a lot of down-ballot candidates in a really difficult position. And I know, Julie, you’d wanted to talk about this, but Republican candidates for U.S. Senate, I mean just how they have to thread the needle, and I don’t know that voters will be as forgiving about changes in their position. So I think they say it’s like, it’s not just about you. It’s like when two people get married, they’re like, “It’s not just about the two of you. It’s like your whole family.” This is like the family is your party and everyone down-ballot who has to now figure out what the best message is, and as we’ve seen, they’ve really struggled with “We’ve shifted now from being many candidates and Republican officeholders supporting basically near-total abortion bans, if not very early gestational limits, to the 15-week ban being a consensus position.” And now saying, well, Trump’s saying he’s not going to sign a national abortion ban, so let’s leave it to the states. I mean, it keeps changing, and I think obviously underscores the difficulty that they’re all having with this. So I don’t think it helps for him to be saying inconsistent things all the time because then these other candidates for office really struggle, I think, with explaining their positions also.

Rovner: So as I say every week, I’ve been covering abortion for a very long time, and before Roe [v. Wade] was overturned the general political rule is you could change positions on abortion once. If you were anti-abortion you could become pro-choice, and we’ve seen that among a lot of Democrats, Sen. [Bob] Casey in Pennsylvania, sort of a notable example. And if you supported abortion rights, you could become anti-abortion, which Trump kind of did when he was running the first time. Others have also as, there are … and again we’re seeing this more among Republicans, but not exclusively.

But people who try to change back usually get hammered. And as I say, Trump has violated every political rule about everything. So not counting him, I’m wondering about, as you say, Rachana, some of these Senate candidates, some of these down-ballot candidates who are struggling to really rationalize their current positions with maybe what they’d said before is something I think that bears watching over the next couple of months.

Huetteman: Absolutely. And we’re seeing candidates who will change their tone within weeks of saying something or practically days at this point. They’re really banking on our attention being pretty low as a public.

Rovner: Yeah. Although they may be right about that part.

Pradhan: Yeah, that’s true. And there’s a lot of time between now and November, but I think even the … just all the things, even this week of course, between now and November is an eternity. But we just talked about the Southern Baptist Convention stance on IVF. Of course, usually when these things happen, it prompts a lot of questions to lawmakers about whether they support that decision or not, whether they agree with it. And I think these court decisions … the Supreme Court, of course, will be out by the end of June, and so right now it might be fresh on people’s minds. But it’s hard to know whether September or October is the dominant or very prominent campaign issue in the same way.

Rovner: At the same time, we have a long way to go and a short way to go, so we will actually all be watching.

All right, well that is the news for this week. Now we will play my interview with Drew Altman and then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast Drew Altman, president and CEO of KFF, and of course my boss. But lest you think that this is going to be a suck-up interview, you will see in a moment it’s also a shameless self-promotion interview. Drew, thank you so much for joining us.

Drew Altman: It’s great to be on “What the Health?” Thank you.

Rovner: I asked you here to talk about KFF’s new “Health Policy 101” project which launched last month, as a resource to help teach the basics of health policy. I know this is something you’ve been thinking about for a while. Tell us what the idea was and who’s the target audience here.

Altman: Well, since the Bronze Era, when I started KFF, faculty and students found their way to our stuff and they found it useful. It might’ve been a fact sheet about Medicaid or a policy brief about Medicare or a bunch of charts that we produced. But they’ve had to hunt and peck to find what they wanted and someone would find something on Medicaid or Medicare or the ACA [Affordable Care Act] or health care costs or women’s health policy or international comparisons or whatever it was. And for a very long time, I have wanted to organize our material about health policy for their world so that it was easy to find. It was one stop, and you could find all the basic materials that you wanted on the core stuff about health policy as a service to faculty and students interested in health policy because we don’t just analyze it and poll about it and report on it. We have a deep commitment. We really care about health policy and health policy education.

Rovner: You said those are the main topics covered. I assume that other topics could be added in the future? I mean, I could see a chapter on AI and health care.

Altman: Yes, and we’re starting with an introduction for me. There’s a chapter by Larry Levitt about challenges ahead. There’s a chapter by somebody named Julie Rovner on Congress and the agencies, who also wrote a book about all of that stuff, which is still available, folks.

Rovner: It desperately needs updating. So I’m pleased to be contributing to this.

Altman: But this is just the first year. And there were 13 chapters on the issues that I ticked off a moment ago and many more issues. And we’re starting the process of adding chapters. So the next chapter will probably be on LGBTQ issues, and then, though it’s not exactly the same thing as health policy, by popular demand, we will have a chapter on the basics of public health and what is the public health system, and spending on public health.

And I will admit, some of this also has origins in my own personal experience because before I was in government or in the nonprofit world or started and ran KFF, I was an academic at MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] and I was fine when it came to big thoughts. And there I was and I’d written a book about health cost regulation. But what I didn’t know much about was how stuff really worked and the basics. And if I really needed to understand what was happening with regulation of private health insurance or the Medicaid program or the Medicare program, I didn’t really have any place to go to get basic information about the history of the program, or the details of the program, or a few charts that would give me the facts that I needed, or what are the current challenges. And when it really sunk in was when I left MIT and I went to work in what is now CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] and then was called the HCFA [Health Care Financing Administration], and boy on the first day did I realize what I did not know. It was only when I entered the real world of health policy that I understood how much I had to learn. So I wanted to bridge the two worlds a little bit by making available this basic “Health Policy 101.”

Rovner: I confess, I’m a little bit jealous that this hadn’t existed when I started to learn health policy because, like you, I had to ferret it all out, although thankfully KFF was there through most of it and I was able to find most of it along the way.

Altman: Exactly, and I think there’ll be other audiences for this because if you’re working on the Hill — but you don’t work full time on health — if you’re working in an association, if you’re working anywhere in the health care system, there’s lots of times when you really just need to understand. I just read about an 1115 waiver. What is that? Or what really is the difference between traditional Medicare and the Medicare Advantage plan? How is it that you get your drugs covered in the Medicare program? It seems to be lots of different ways. And just I’m confused. How does this actually work?

I’ll admit to you, also, I personally have an ulterior motive in all of this. And my ulterior motive is that it is my feeling now, and this has been a slowly creeping problem, that there isn’t enough what I would call health policy in health policy education. So that over time it has become more about what is fashionable now, which is delivery and quality and value.

And I won’t name names, but I spent a couple of days advising a health policy center at a renowned medical school about their curriculum in what they called health policy. And the draft of it had nothing in it that I recognized as health policy. Some of this is understandable. It’s because if you’re faculty with a disciplinary base — economics, political science, sociology, whatever — there’s no reason you would know a lot about what we recognize as the core of health policy. There has been a serious decline in faith in government, in young people taking jobs in certainly the federal government, but a little bit in state government as well. So the jobs now are all in the health care industry, they’re in tech, they’re in consulting firms. And so I think there’s just less of an incentive to learn a lot about Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, the federal agencies, because you’re not going to go work in the federal agencies, at least as frequently as students did in my time. And so just to be blunt about it, I am, in my mind, trying to get more health policy back into health policy education.

Rovner: Well, as you know, I endorse that fully because that’s what we’re trying to do, too. One more question since I have you. I’ve been thinking about this a lot. When I started covering health policy shortly after you left HCFA, the big issue was people without insurance. And then throughout the early 2000s the big issue was spiraling costs. I feel like now the big issue is people who simply cannot navigate the system. The system has become so byzantine and complicated that, well, now there’s a “South Park” about it. I mean, it’s really to get even minor things dealt with is a major undertaking. I mean, what do you see as the biggest issue in policy for the next five or 10 years?

Altman: Well, I think the big issue for health care people used to be access to care. Now only about 8% of the population is uninsured. The big issue now is affordability, in my mind, and the struggles Americans are having paying their health care bills. It is an especially acute problem, virtually a crisis, for people with severe illnesses or people who are chronically ill. Fifty[%], 60% of those people really struggle to pay their medical bills. The crisis or the problem that isn’t discussed enough — because it isn’t a single problem it rears its head in so many ways — is the one you’re talking about: that is the complexity of the health care system. Just the sheer complexity of it; how difficult it is to navigate and to use for people who have insurance or don’t have insurance. Larry Levitt and I wrote a piece in JAMA about this, and we, all of us at KFF, are trying to focus more attention on that problem. Need to do more work on that problem and the many parts of it. It’s partly why we set up an entire program a couple of years ago on consumer and patient protection, where we intend to focus more on just this issue of the complexity of the system makes it hard to make it work for people. But especially for patients who are people who encounter the system because they need it.

Rovner: Well, we will both continue to try to keep explaining it as it keeps getting more byzantine. Drew Altman, thank you so much for joining us.

Altman: Thank you, Julie, very much.

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

Huetteman: Sure. My story comes from CBS [News]. The headline is “As FDA Urges Crackdown on Bird Flu in Raw Milk, Some States Say Their Hands Are Tied.” So the story says that there are three more states that have had their first reported cases of bird flu in the last month. And two of them don’t really have a way to conduct increased oversight of dairy cows and the industry that seems to be particularly having problems here. Wyoming and Iowa are those two states. Basically, these are states where raw milk is unregulated, so there’s no way for them to implement surveillance and restrictions on raw milk that might protect people from the fact that pasteurization appears to kill bird flu. But you don’t have pasteurization with raw milk, of course, that’s the definition.

Actually, this leads me to an extra, extra credit. KFF Health News’ Tony Leys wrote about the raw milk change in Iowa last year, and he was reporting on how Iowa only just changed their law, allowing legal sales of raw milk. And his story, among other things, pointed out that pasteurization helped rein in many serious illnesses in the past, including tuberculosis, typhoid, and scarlet fever. So unfortunately, this is a public health issue that’s been going on for a century or more, and we’ve got a method to deal with this, but not if you’re drinking raw milk. So that’s my story this week.

Rovner: Now people are going to drink raw milk and not get childhood vaccines. We’ll see how that goes. Sorry. Anna, you go next.

Edney: Yeah, mine is from Stat and it’s “Four Tops Singer’s Lawsuit Says He Visited ER for Chest Pain, Ended Up in Straitjacket.” It’s really scary, and maybe not totally surprising, unfortunately, that this is how an older Black man was treated when he went to the hospital. But this is Alexander Morris, a member of the Motown group The Four Tops. These are in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, The Four Tops, and he had chest pain and problems breathing and went to the hospital in Detroit and was immediately just assumed he was mentally ill, and he ended up quickly in a straitjacket. So he is suing this hospital. And I think he brought up in this article he’d seen people talk about driving while Black or walking while Black, and he essentially had become sick while Black. And he was able to prove he was a famous person and they took him out of the straitjacket. But how many other people haven’t had that ability, and just been assumed, because of the color of their skin, to not be having a serious health issue? So I think it’s worth a read.

Rovner: Yeah, it was quite a story. Rachana.

Pradhan: This week, I will take a story from The New York Times that is headlined “Abortion Groups Say Tech Companies Suppress Posts and Accounts.” It is basically an examination of how TikTok, Instagram, and others, how they moderate/remove content about abortion. What’s interesting about this is, so this is being told from the perspective of individuals who support access to abortion services. And it recounts some examples of Instagram suspending one group, it was called Mayday Health, which provides information about abortion pill access. There’s a telemedicine abortion service called Hey Jane, where TikTok briefly suspended them. What I thought was really interesting about this is anti-abortion groups have said for longer, actually, that technology companies have suppressed or censored information about crisis pregnancy centers, for example, that designed to dissuade women from having abortions. But I think it’s concerns about, broadly speaking, just what the policies are of some of these social media companies and how they decide what information is acceptable or not. And it details these examples of, again, women who support abortion access or posting TikToks that maybe spell abortion phonetically. Like “tion” is, instead of T-I-O-N, it’s S-H-U-N. Or they’ll put a zero instead of an O, and so it doesn’t get flagged in the same way. So yeah, definitely an interesting read.

Rovner: The fraughtness of social media moderation on this issue and many others. Well, my extra credit this week is from my fellow Michigan fan and sometime podcast guest Jonathan Cohn of HuffPost, and it’s called “How America’s Mental Health Crisis Became This Family’s Worst Nightmare.” And it’s basically the story of the entire mental health system in the United States over the last century, as told through the eyes of one middle-class American family, about one patient whose trip through the system came to a tragic end. Even if you think you know about this country’s failure to adequately treat people with mental illness, even if you do know about this country’s failures on mental health, you really do need to read this story. It is that good.

All right, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our doing-double-duty editor this week, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re whatthehealth, all one word, @kff.org. Or you can still find me at X, I’m @jrovner. Anna?

Edney: @annaedney.

Rovner: Rachana?

Pradhan: I’m @rachanadpradhan on X.

Rovner: Emmarie?

Huetteman: I’m lurking on X @EmmarieDC.

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. Actually, we’ll be coming to you from Aspen next week. But until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

GAINESVILLE, Fla. — En un granero al aire libre en el borde de la Universidad de Florida, el veterinario Juan Campos Krauer examina las pezuñas y las orejas de un armadillo muerto en busca de signos de infección.

Sus garras están apretadas y cubiertas de sangre. Campos Krauer cree que lo golpearon en la cabeza mientras cruzaba una carretera cercana.

Luego, corta con un bisturí la parte inferior del animal y extrae todos los órganos importantes: corazón, hígado, riñones. Coloca las muestras embotelladas en un congelador ultra frío, en su laboratorio de la universidad.

Campos Krauer planea examinar el armadillo para detectar lepra, un antiguo mal también conocido como enfermedad de Hansen que puede provocar daño a los nervios y desfiguración en humanos. Junto con otros científicos están tratando de resolver un misterio médico: por qué Florida central se ha convertido en una zona crítica para las antiguas bacterias que la causan.

La lepra sigue siendo rara en Estados Unidos. Pero Florida, que a menudo informa el mayor número de casos de cualquier estado, ha visto un aumento en pacientes. El epicentro está al este de Orlando. El condado de Brevard informó un asombroso 13% de los 159 casos de lepra del país en 2020, según un análisis del Tampa Bay Times de datos estatales y federales.

Muchas preguntas sobre el fenómeno siguen sin respuesta. Pero expertos en lepra creen que los armadillos juegan un papel en la propagación de la enfermedad a las personas. Para comprender mejor quién está en riesgo y prevenir infecciones, unos 10 científicos se unieron el año pasado para investigar.

El grupo incluye investigadores de la Universidad de Florida, la Universidad Estatal de Colorado y la Universidad de Emory, en Atlanta.

“Realmente no sabemos cómo está ocurriendo esta transmisión”, dijo Ramanuj Lahiri, jefe de la rama de investigación de laboratorio del Programa Nacional de Enfermedad de Hansen, que estudia las bacterias involucradas y cuida a los pacientes con lepra en todo el país.

“Nada encajaba”

Se cree que la lepra es la infección humana más antigua de la historia. Probablemente ha estado enfermando a las personas durante al menos 100,000 años. Es fuertemente estigmatizada: en la Biblia, se describía como un castigo por pecar. En tiempos más modernos, los pacientes eran aislados en “colonias” alrededor del mundo, incluyendo en Hawaii y Louisiana.

En casos leves, las bacterias de crecimiento lento causan algunas lesiones. Si no se trata, pueden paralizar las manos y los pies.

Pero en realidad es difícil enfermarse de lepra, ya que la infección no es muy contagiosa. Los antibióticos pueden curar la enfermedad en uno o dos años. Están disponibles de forma gratuita a través del gobierno federal y de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS), que lanzó una campaña en la década de 1990 para eliminar la lepra como problema de salud pública.

En 2000, los casos reportados en EE.UU. cayeron a su nivel más bajo en décadas, con 77 infecciones. Pero luego aumentaron, promediando alrededor de 180 por año desde 2011 hasta 2020, según datos del Programa Nacional de Enfermedad de Hansen.

Durante ese tiempo, surgió una tendencia curiosa en Florida.

En la primera década del siglo XXI, el estado registró 67 casos. El condado de Miami-Dade tuvo 20 infecciones, la mayoría de cualquier condado de Florida. La gran mayoría de esos casos fueron adquiridos fuera del país, según un análisis del Times de datos del Departamento de Salud de Florida.

Pero durante los siguientes 10 años, los casos registrados en el estado fueron más del doble, 176, y el condado de Brevard tomó el protagonismo.

El condado, cuya población es aproximadamente una quinta parte del tamaño de Miami-Dade, registró 85 infecciones durante ese tiempo, con mucho, la mayoría de cualquier condado en el estado y casi la mitad de todos los casos de Florida. En la década anterior, Brevard solo registró cinco casos.

De manera notable, al menos una cuarta parte de las infecciones de Brevard fueron adquiridas dentro del estado, no mientras los individuos estaban en el extranjero.

India, Brasil e Indonesia diagnostican más casos de lepra que en cualquier otro lugar, reportando más de 135,000 infecciones combinadas solo en 2022.

Las personas se estaban enfermando a pesar de no haber viajado a esas áreas ni haber estado en contacto cercano con pacientes con lepra, dijo Barry Inman, ex epidemiólogo del departamento de salud de Brevard que investigó los casos y se retiró en 2021.

“Nada encajaba”, dijo Inman. Algunos pacientes recordaron haber tocado armadillos, que se sabe que portan las bacterias. Pero la mayoría no, dijo. Muchos pasaron mucho tiempo al aire libre, incluidos trabajadores de jardines y ávidos jardineros. Los casos eran generalmente leves.

Era difícil determinar dónde contrajeron la enfermedad, agregó. Debido a que las bacterias crecen tan lentamente, pueden pasar entre nueve meses y 20 años para que comiencen los síntomas.

¿Amoeba o insectos culpables?

Concientizar sobre la lepra podría desempeñar un papel en el aumento de casos en Brevard. Los médicos deben reportar la lepra al Departamento de Salud. Sin embargo, Inman dijo que muchos en el condado no lo sabían, por lo que trató de educarlos después de notar los casos a fines de la década de 2000.

Pero ese no es el único factor en juego, dijo Inman. “No creo que haya ninguna duda en mi mente de que está ocurriendo algo nuevo”, dijo.

Otras partes en el centro de Florida también han registrado más infecciones. De 2011 a 2020, el condado de Polk registró 12 casos, triplicando su número en comparación con los 10 años anteriores. El condado de Volusia registró 10 casos. No reportó ninguno en la década anterior.

Los científicos se están enfocando en los armadillos. Sospechan que estos animales que son cavadores pueden causar indirectamente infecciones a través de la contaminación del suelo.

Los armadillos, que están protegidos por caparazones duros, sirven como buenos huéspedes para las bacterias, a las que no les gusta el calor y pueden prosperar en los animales cuyos rangos de temperatura corporal son de 86 a 95 grados Fahrenheit.

Los colonos probablemente trajeron la enfermedad al Nuevo Mundo hace cientos de años, y de alguna manera los armadillos se infectaron, dijo Lahiri, el científico del Programa Nacional de Enfermedad de Hansen.

Estos mamíferos nocturnos pueden desarrollar lesiones por la enfermedad igual que los humanos. Hay más de un millón de armadillos en Florida, estimó Campos Krauer, profesor asistente en el Departamento de Ciencias Clínicas de Animales Grandes de la Universidad de Florida.

Cuántos portan lepra no está claro. Un estudio publicado en 2015 con más de 600 armadillos en Alabama, Florida, Georgia y Mississippi encontró que aproximadamente el 16% mostraban evidencia de infección. Expertos en salud pública creen que la lepra anteriormente estaba confinada a los armadillos al oeste del río Mississippi y luego se extendió hacia el este.

Manipular los animales es un peligro conocido. La investigación de laboratorio muestra que las amebas unicelulares, que viven en el suelo, también pueden portar las bacterias.

Los armadillos aman desenterrar y comer lombrices, lo que frustra a los propietarios de viviendas cuyos jardines dañan. Los animales pueden eliminar las bacterias mientras buscan comida, pasándolas a las amebas, que podrían infectar a las personas más tarde.

Los expertos en lepra también se preguntan si los insectos ayudan a propagar la enfermedad. Las garrapatas que chupan sangre también podrían ser culpables, según muestra la investigación de laboratorio.

“Algunas personas que están infectadas tienen poca o ninguna exposición al armadillo”, dijo Norman Beatty, profesor asistente de medicina en la Universidad de Florida. “Probablemente hay otra fuente de transmisión en el medio ambiente”.

Campos Krauer, que ha estado buscando armadillos muertos en las calles de Gainesville, quiere reunir animales infectados y dejarlos descomponer en un área cercada, permitiendo que los restos se empapen en una bandeja con tierra mientras las moscas ponen huevos. Espera examinar la tierra y las larvas para ver si recogen las bacterias.

Agregando intriga hay una cepa de lepra encontrada solo en Florida, según los científicos. En el estudio de 2015, los investigadores descubrieron que siete armadillos del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre de Merritt Island, que está mayormente en Brevard pero cruza a Volusia, portaban una versión del patógeno no vista anteriormente.

Diez pacientes en la región también se vieron afectados por esta cepa. A nivel genético, es similar a otro tipo encontrado en armadillos en el país, dijo Charlotte Avanzi, investigadora de la Universidad Estatal de Colorado que se especializa en lepra. No se sabe si la cepa causa una enfermedad más grave, dijo Lahiri.

Reduciendo el riesgo

El público no debe entrar en pánico por la lepra, ni las personas deben apresurarse a sacrificar armadillos, advierten los investigadores.

Los científicos estiman que más del 95% de la población humana mundial tiene una capacidad natural para resistir la enfermedad. Creen que se necesitan meses de exposición a gotitas respiratorias para que ocurra la transmisión de persona a persona.

Pero cuando ocurren infecciones, pueden ser devastadoras. “Si lo entendemos mejor”, dijo Campos Krauer, “podremos aprender a vivir con él y reducir el riesgo”.

La nueva investigación también puede proporcionar información para otros estados del sur. Los armadillos, que no hibernan, se han estado moviendo hacia el norte, dijo Campos Krauer, alcanzando áreas como Indiana y Virginia.

Podrían ir más lejos debido al cambio climático.

Las personas preocupadas por la lepra pueden tomar precauciones simples, dicen los expertos médicos. Aquellos que trabajan en tierra deben usar guantes y lavarse las manos después. Elevar las camas de jardín o rodearlas con una cerca puede limitar las posibilidades de contaminación del suelo.

Si se desentierra una madriguera de armadillo, es mejor usar una mascarilla, dijo Campos Krauer. No jugar con los animales ni comerlos, agregó John Spencer, científico de la Universidad Estatal de Colorado que estudia la transmisión de la lepra en Brasil. Es legal cazarlos todo el año en Florida sin una licencia.

Hasta ahora, el equipo de Campos Krauer ha examinado 16 armadillos muertos encontrados en carreteras del área de Gainesville, a más de 100 millas del epicentro de la lepra del estado, tratando de obtener una idea preliminar de cuántos portan las bacterias.

Todavía ninguno ha dado positivo.

Este artículo fue producido por una asociación entre KFF Health News y el Tampa Bay Times.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).