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.

Public health officials are watching with concern since a strain of bird flu spread to dairy cows in at least nine states, and to at least one dairy worker. But in the wake of covid-19, many farmers are loath to let in health authorities for testing.

Meanwhile, another large health company — the Catholic hospital chain Ascension — has been targeted by a cyberattack, leading to serious problems at some facilities.

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

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs Zhang
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Stumbles in the early response to bird flu bear an uncomfortable resemblance to the early days of covid, including the troubles protecting workers who could be exposed to the disease. Notably, the Department of Agriculture benefited from millions in covid relief funds designed to strengthen disease surveillance.
• Congress is working to extend coverage of telehealth care; the question is, how to pay for it? Lawmakers appear to have settled on a two-year agreement, though more on the extension — including how much it will cost — remains unknown.
• Speaking of telehealth, a new report shows about 20% of medication abortions are supervised via telehealth care. State-level restrictions are forcing those in need of abortion care to turn to options farther from home.
• And new reporting on Medicaid illuminates the number of people falling through the cracks of the government health system for low-income and disabled Americans — including how insurance companies benefit from individuals’ confusion over whether they have Medicaid coverage at all.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Atul Grover of the Association of American Medical Colleges about its recent analysis showing that graduating medical students are avoiding training in states with abortion bans and major restrictions.

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 “Why Writing by Hand Beats Typing for Thinking and Learning,” by Jonathan Lambert.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Time’s “‘I Don’t Have Faith in Doctors Anymore.’ Women Say They Were Pressured Into Long-Term Birth Control,” by Alana Semuels.  

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Stat’s “After Decades Fighting Big Tobacco, Cliff Douglas Now Leads a Foundation Funded by His Former Adversaries,” by Nicholas Florko.  

Sandhya Raman: The Baltimore Banner’s “People With Severe Mental Illness Are Stuck in Jail. Montgomery County Is the Epicenter of the Problem,” by Ben Conarck.  

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• Stat’s “My Rendezvous With the Raw Milk Black Market: Quick, Easy, and Unchecked by the FDA,” by Nicholas Florko.
• The Stamford Advocate’s “Dan Haar: Hackers Stole a Disabled CT Couple’s SNAP Food Aid. Now They’re Out $1,373,” by Dan Haar.
• WKRN’s “‘Chaos’: Nurses, Visitors Describe Conditions Inside Ascension Hospitals After Cyberattack,” by Stephanie Langston.
• KFF Health News’ “Medicaid ‘Unwinding’ Decried as Biased Against Disabled People,” by Daniel Chang.
• KFF Health News’ “Why Medicaid’s ‘Undercount’ Problem Counts,” by Phil Galewitz.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Bird Flu Lands as the Next Public Health Challenge

[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, May 16, 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 following her sabbatical, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Hi, everyone.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with Atul Grover of the Association of American Medical Colleges. He’s the co-author of the analysis we talked about on last week’s episode about how graduating medical students are avoiding applying for residencies in states with abortion bans or severe restrictions. But first this week’s news.

Well, I have been trying to avoid it, but I guess we finally have to talk about bird flu, which I think we really need to start calling “cow flu.” I just hope we don’t have to call it the next pandemic. Seriously, scientists say they’ve never seen the H5N1 virus spread quite like this before, including to at least one farmworker, who luckily had a very mild case. And public health officials are, if not actively freaking out, at least expressing very serious concern.

On the one hand, the federal government is providing livestock farmers tens of thousands of dollars each to beef up their protective measures — yes, I did that on purpose — and test for the avian flu virus in their cows, which seems to be spreading rapidly. On the other hand, many farmers are resisting efforts to allow health officials to test their herds, and this is exactly the kind of thing at the federal level that touches off those intra-agency rivalries between FDA [Food and Drug Administration] and USDA [United States Department of Agriculture] and the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention].

Is this going to be the first test of how weak our public health sector has become in the wake of covid? And how worried should we be both about the bird flu and about the ability of government to do anything about it? Rachel, you wrote about this this week.

Cohrs Zhang: I did, yes. It is kind of wild to see a lot of these patterns play out yet again, as if we’ve learned nothing. We still have a lot of challenges between coordinating with state and local health officials and federal agencies like CDC. We’re still seeing authorities that are exactly the same between USDA and FDA. USDA actually got $300 million from covid relief bills to try to increase their surveillance for these kind of diseases that spread among animals, but people are worried it could all potentially jump to humans.

So I think there was a lot of hope that maybe we would learn some lessons and learn to respond better, but I think we have seen some hiccups and just these jurisdictional issues that have just continued to happen because Congress didn’t really address some of these larger authorities in any meaningful way.

Rovner: I think the thing that worries me the most is looking at the dairy farmers who don’t want to let inspectors onto their farms. That strikes me as something that could seriously hamper efforts to know how widely and how fast this is spreading.

Cohrs Zhang: It could. And USDA does have more authority than they have had in other foodborne disease outbreaks like E. coli or salmonella to get on these farms, according to the experts that I’ve talked to. But we do see sometimes federal agencies don’t always want to use their full statutory authority because then it creates conflict. And obviously USDA has this dual mission of both ensuring food safety and promoting agriculture. And I think that comes into conflict sometimes and USDA just hasn’t been willing to enforce anything mandatory on farms yet. They’ve been kind of trying to use the carrot instead of the stick approach so far. So we’ll see how that goes and how much information they’re able to obtain with the measures they’ve used so far.

Rovner: Alice, you want to add something.

Ollstein: Yeah, I mean, like Rachel said, it’s sort of Groundhog Day for some of the bigger missteps of covid: inadequate testing, inadequate PPE [personal protective equipment]. But it’s also like a scary repeat of some of the specifics of covid, which really hit agricultural workers really hard. And a lot of that wasn’t known at the time, but we know it now. And a lot of workers in these agricultural, meatpacking, and other sectors, were just really devastated and forced to keep working during the outbreak.

This sector in particular has been resistant to public health enforcement and we’re just seeing that repeat once again with a potentially more deadly virus should it make the jump to humans.

Rovner: Basically, from what they can tell, this virus is in a lot of milk. It seems that pasteurization can kill it, but is this maybe what will get people to stop drinking raw milk, which isn’t that safe anyway? And if you need to know why you shouldn’t drink raw milk, I will link to a highly informative and entertaining story by Rachel’s colleague Nick Florko about how easy it is to buy raw milk and how dangerous it can be. This is one of those things where the public looks at the public health and goes, “Yeah, nah.”

Ollstein: Right, yeah. I think, at least anecdotally, the raw milk seller that Nick bought from indicated that business is good for him, business is booming. A lot of the people that maybe weren’t so concerned about covid aren’t so concerned about bird flu, and I think that will continue to drink that. Again, we haven’t seen a lot of data about how exactly that works with bird flu fragments or virus fragments: whether it’s showing up in raw milk?; what happens when people drink it? There’s so many questions we have right now because I think the FDA has been focused on pasteurized milk because that’s what most people drink. But certainly in terms of concern with transitions into humans, I think that’s an area to watch.

Raman: One of the things that struck me was that one of the benefits from what the USDA and HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] were doing was the benefit for workers to get a swab test and do an interview so they can study more and gauge the situation.

If $75 is enough to incentivize people to take off work, to maybe have to do transportation, to do those other things. And if they’ll be able to get some of the data, just as Rachel was saying, to just kind of continue gauging the situation. So I think that’ll be interesting to see.

Because even with when we had covid, there were so many incentives that we did just for vaccines that we hoped would be successful for different populations and money and prizes and all sorts of things that didn’t necessarily move the needle.

Rovner: Although some did. And nice pun there.

All right, well, moving on to less potentially-end-of-the-world health news, Congress is grappling with whether and how to extend coverage of telehealth and, if so, how to pay for it. Telehealth, of course, was practically the only way to get nonemergency health care throughout most of the pandemic, and both patients and providers got used to it and even, dare I say, came to like it. But as a Politico story succinctly put it this week, telehealth “has the potential to reduce expenses but also lead to more visits, driving up costs.”

Rachel, you’ve been watching this also this week. Where are we on these competing telehealth bills?

Cohrs Zhang: Well, we have some news this morning. The [House Committee on] Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee is planning to mark up their telehealth bill. And the underlying bill will be a permanent extension of some of these Medicare telehealth flexibilities that matter a lot to seniors. But they’re planning to amend it today, so that they’re proposing a two-year extension, which does fall more in line with what the Ways and Means Committee, which is kind of the counterpart that makes policy on health care, marked up …

Rovner: Yes, they shared jurisdiction over Medicare.

Cohrs Zhang: … unanimously passed. They shared, yes, but it is surprising and remarkable for them to come to an agreement this quickly on a two-year extension. Again, I think industry would’ve loved to see a little bit more certainty on this for what these authorities are going to look like, but I think it is just expensive. Again, when these bills pass out of committee, then we’ll actually get formal cost estimates for them, which will be helpful in informing what our end-of-the-year December package is going to look like on health care. But we are seeing some alignment now in the House on a two-year telehealth extension for some of these very impactful measures for Medicare patients.

Rovner: Congress potentially getting things done months before they actually have to! Dare we hope?

Meanwhile, bridging this week’s topics between telehealth and abortion, which we will get to next, a new report from the family planning group WeCount! finds that not only are medication abortions more than half of all abortions being performed these days, but telehealth medication abortions now make up 20% of all medication abortions.

Some of this increase obviously is the pandemic relaxation of in-person medication abortion rules by the FDA, as well as shield laws that attempt to protect providers in states where abortion is still legal, who prescribe the pills for patients in states where abortion is banned.

Still, I imagine this is making anti-abortion activists really, really frustrated because it is certainly compromising their ability to really stop abortions in these states with bans, right?

Ollstein: Well, I think for a while we’ve seen anti-abortion activists really targeting the two main routes for people who live in states with bans to still have an abortion. One is ordering pills and the other is traveling out of state. And so they are exploring different policies to cut off both. Obviously both are very hard to police, both logistically and legally. There’s been a lot of debate about how this would be enforced. You see Louisiana moving to make abortion pills a controlled substance and police it that way. These pills are used for more than just abortions, so there’s some health care implications to going down that route. They’re used in miscarriage management, they’re used for other things as well in health care. And then of course, the enforcement question. Short of going through everyone’s mail, which has obvious constitutional problems, how would you ever know? These pills are sent to people’s homes in discreet packaging.

What we’ve seen so far with anti-abortion laws and their enforcement is that just the chilling effect alone and the fear is often enough to deter people from using different methods. And so that could be the goal. But actually cutting off people from telehealth abortions that, like you said, like the report said, have become very, very widely used, seems challenging.

Raman: And I would say that that really underscores the importance of the case we’d heard this year from the Supreme Court, and that we will get a decision coming up about the regulation of medication abortions. And how the court lands on that could have a huge impact on the next steps for all of these. So it’s in flux regardless of what’s happening here.

Cohrs Zhang: I want to emphasize, too, that mail-order abortion pills have been sort of held up as this silver bullet for getting around bans. And for a lot of people, that seems to be the case. But I really hear from providers and from patients that this is not a solution for everyone. A lot of people don’t have internet access or don’t know how to navigate different websites to find a reliable source for the pills. Or they’re too scared to do so, scared by the threat of law enforcement or scared that they could purchase some sort of counterfeit that isn’t effective or harms them.

Some people, even when they’re eligible for a medication abortion, prefer surgical or procedural because with a medication you take it and then you have to wait a few weeks to find out if it worked. And so some people would rather go into the clinic, make sure it’s done, have that peace of mind and security.

Also, these pills are delivered to people’s homes. Some people, because of a domestic violence situation or because they’re a minor who’s still at home with their parents, they can’t have anything sent to their homes. There’s a lot of reasons why this isn’t a solution for everyone, that I’ve been hearing about, but it is a solution, it seems, for a lot of people.

Rovner: In other abortion news this week, Democrats in the Missouri state Senate this week broke the record for the longest filibuster in history in an effort to block anti-abortion forces from making it harder for voters to amend the state constitution.

Alice, this feels pretty familiar, like it’s just about what happened in Ohio, right? And I guess the filibuster is over, but so far they’ve managed to be successful. What’s happening in Missouri?

Ollstein: So Missouri Democrats, with their filibuster that lasted for days, managed to stop a vote for now on a measure that would’ve made ballot measures harder to pass, including the abortion rights ballot measure that’s expected this fall. It’s not over yet. They sort of kicked it back to committee, but there’s only basically a day left in the legislature session, and so stay tuned over the next day to see what happens.

But what Democrats are trying to do is prevent what happened in Ohio, which is setting up a summer special election on a provision that would make all ballot measures harder to pass in the future. In Ohio, they did hold that summer vote, and voters defeated it and then went on to pass an abortion rights measure. And so even if Republicans push this through, it can still be scuttled later. But there, Democrats are trying to nip it in the bud to make sure that doesn’t happen in the first place.

Rovner: I thought that was very well explained. Thank you very much.

And speaking of misleading ballot measures, next door in Nebraska — and I did have to look at a map to make sure that Nebraska and Missouri do have a border, they do — anti-abortion forces are pushing a ballot measure they’re advertising as enshrining abortion rights in the state constitution, but which would actually enshrine the state’s current 12-week ban.

We’re seeing more and more of this: anti-abortion forces trying to sort of confuse voters about what it is that they’re voting on.

Raman: I mean, I think that that has been something that we have been seeing a little bit more of this. They’ve been trying different tactics to see — the same metaphor of throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. So with Nebraska right now, the proposal is to ban abortions after the first trimester, except in the trio of cases: medical emergencies, rape, incest.

And so that’s definitely different than a lot of the other ballot measures that we’ve seen in the last few years in that it’s being kind of pitched as a little bit of a middle ground and it has the backing of the different anti-abortion groups. But at the same time, it would allow state legislature to put additional bans on top of that. This is just kind of like the mark in the constitution and it would already keep in place the bans that you have in place.

So it’s a little bit more difficult to comprehend, especially if you’re just kind of walking in and checking a box, since there’s more nuance to it than some of the other measures. And I think that a lot of that is definitely more happening in states like that and others.

Rovner: I feel like we’re learning a lot more about ballot measures and how they work. And while we’re in the Great Plains, there’s a wild story out of South Dakota this week about an actual scam related to signatures on petitions for abortion ballot measures. Somebody tease this one apart.

Ollstein: So in South Dakota, they’ve already submitted signatures to put an abortion rights measure on the November ballot. The state is, as happens in most states, going through those signatures to verify it. What’s different than most states is that the state released the names of some of the people who signed the petition, and that enabled these anti-abortion groups to look up all those people and start calling them, and to try to convince them to withdraw their signatures to deny this from going forward.

What happened is that, in doing so, these groups are accused of misrepresenting themselves and impersonating government officials in the way they said, “Hey, we’re the ballot integrity committee of the something, something, something.” And they said it in a way that made it sound like they were with the secretary of state’s office. So the secretary of state put out a press release condemning this and referring it to law enforcement.

The group has admitted to doing this and said it’s done nothing wrong, that technically it didn’t say anything untrue. Of course there’s lying versus misleading versus this versus that. It’s a bit complicated here.

So regardless, I am skeptical that enough people will bother to go through the process of withdrawing their signature to make a difference. It’s a lot more work to withdraw your signature than to sign in the first place. You have to go in person or mail something in. And so I am curious to see if, one, whether this is illegal, and two, whether it makes a difference on the ground.

Rovner: Well, at some point, I think by the end of the summer we’ll be able to make a comprehensive list of where there are going to be ballot measures and what they’re going to be. In the meantime, we shall keep watching.

Let’s move on to another continuing story: health system cyberhacks. This week’s victim is Ascension, a large Catholic system with hospitals in 19 states. And the hack, to quote the AP, “forced some of its 140 hospitals to divert ambulances, caused patients to postpone medical tests, and blocked online access to patient records.”

You would think in the wake of the Change Healthcare hack, big systems like Ascension would’ve taken steps to lock things down more, or is that just me?

Cohrs Zhang: We’re still using fax machines, Julie. What are your expectations here? So cyberattacks have been a theoretical concern of health systems for a long time. I mean, back in 2019, 2020, Congress was kind of sliding provisions into spending bills to help support health systems in upgrading their systems. But again, we’re just seeing the scale. And I think these stories that came out this week really illustrate the human impact of these cyberattacks. And people are waiting longer in an ambulance to get to the hospital.

I mean, that’s a really serious issue. And I’m hoping that health systems will start taking this seriously. But I think it’s just exposing yet another risk that the failure to upgrade these systems isn’t just an inconvenience for people actually using the system. It isn’t just a disservice to all kind of the power of health care data and patients’ information that they could be leveraging better. But it’s also a real medical concern with these attacks. So I am optimistic. We’ll see. Sometimes it takes these sort of events to force change.

Rovner: Well, just before we started to tape this morning, I saw a story out of Tennessee about one of the hospitals that’s being affected. And apparently it is. I believe the word “chaos” was used in the headline and the lead. I mean, these are really serious things. It’s not just what’s going on in the back room, it’s what’s going on with patient care.

In maybe the most depressing hacking story ever, in Connecticut criminals are hacking and stealing the value of people’s electronic food stamp debit card. The Stamford Advocate wrote about one older couple whose card has been now hacked five times and who are out nearly $1,400 they can’t get back because the state can only reimburse people for two hacks. I remember when electronic funds transfers were going to make our lives so much easier. They do seem to be making lives so much easier for criminals.

Finally this week, more on the mess that is the Medicaid unwinding, from two of my colleagues. One story by Daniel Chang is about how people with disabilities, who shouldn’t really have been impacted by the unwinding anyway, are losing critical home care services in all of the administrative confusion. This seems a lot like the cases of eligible children losing coverage because their parents were deemed to have too-high income, even though children have different eligibility criteria.

I know the Biden administration has been trying to soft-pedal its pushes to some of these states. Rachel, you were talking about the USDA trying not to push too hard, but it does seem like in Medicaid a lot of eligible people are falling between the cracks.

Raman: Yeah, I mean states, as we’ve seen, have been really trying to see how fast that they can go to kind of reverify this huge batch of folks because it will be a cost saver for them to have fewer folks on the rolls. But as you’re saying, that a lot of people are falling through the cracks, especially when it’s unintentionally getting pulled from the program like your colleague’s story. And people with a lot of chronic disabilities already qualify for Medicaid, don’t need to be reverified each time because they’re continually qualified for it. And so there are some cases that have been filed already by the National Health Law Program in Colorado, and [Washington,] D.C., and Texas. And so we’ll kind of see as time goes on, how those go and if there’s any changes made to stop that.

Rovner: Also on the Medicaid beat, my colleague Phil Galewitz has a story that’s kind of the opposite. According to a study in the policy journal Health Affairs, a third of those enrolled in Medicaid in 2022, didn’t even know it. That’s 26 million people. And 3 million people actually thought they were uninsured when they in fact had Medicaid. That not only meant lots of people who didn’t get needed health services because they thought they couldn’t afford them because they thought they didn’t have insurance, but also managed-care companies who got paid for these enrollees who never got any care, and conveniently never bothered to inform them that they were covered. Rachel, you had a comment about this?

Cohrs Zhang: I did, yes. One part I really liked about this story is how Phil highlighted that it’s in insurance companies’ best interests for these people not to know that they can get health care services. Because a lot of Medicaid, they’re getting a payment for each member, capitated payments. And so if people aren’t using it, then the insurance companies are making more money. And so I think there has been some more, I think, political conversation about the incentives that capitated payments create especially in the Medicaid population. And so I think that was certainly just a disservice. I mean, these people have been done a disservice by someone. And I think that it’s a really interesting question of who should have been reaching them. And we’ll just, I guess, never know how much care they could have gotten and how their lives could be different had they known.

Rovner: It’s funny, we’ve known for a long time when they do the uninsured statistics that people don’t always know what kind of insurance they have. And they’ll say when they started asking a follow-up question, the Census Bureau started asking a follow-up question about insurance, suddenly the number of uninsured went down. This is the first time I’ve seen a study like this though, where people actually had insurance but didn’t know it. And it’s really interesting. And you’re right, it has real policy ramifications.

All right, well that’s the news for this week. Before we get to our interview, Sandhya, you’ve been gone for the last couple of months on sabbatical. Tell us what you saw in Europe.

Raman: Yeah, so it’s good to be back. I was gone for six weeks mostly to France, improving my French to see how I could get better at that and hopefully use it in my reporting at some point. It was interesting because I was trying to tune out of the news a little bit and stay away from health care. And of course when you try to do that, it comes right back to you. So I would be in my French class and we’d do a practice, let’s read an article or learn a historical thing, and lo and behold, one of the examples was about abortion politics in France over the years.

It was interesting to have to explain to my classmates, “Yes, I’m very familiar with this topic, and how much do you want me to talk about how this is in my country? But let me make sure I know all of those words.” So it pops up even when you think you’re going to sneak away from it.

Rovner: Yes, and we’re very obviously U.S.-centric here, but when you go to another country you realize none of their health systems work that well either. So the frustration continues everywhere.

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

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Dr. Atul Grover, executive director of the Association of American [Medical] Colleges’ Research and Action Institute. I bet you have a very long business card.

And I want to offer him a public apology for not having him on sooner. Atul is the co-author of the report we talked about on last week’s episode on how graduating medical students are less likely to apply for residency in states with abortion bans and restrictions. Welcome at last to “What the Health?”

Grover: Better late than never.

Rovner: So there seems to be some confusion, at least in social media land, about some of the numbers here. Tell us what your analysis found.

Grover: First, Julie, is there ever not confusion in social media land? The numbers basically bear out the same thing that we saw last year — making it a very short but real trend — which is that when we look at where new U.S. medical school graduates are applying for residencies, and they apply to any number of programs, what they’re doing, it appears, is selectively avoiding those states in which abortion is either completely banned or severely restricted. And that’s not just in reproductive health-heavy specialties like OB-GYN, but it seems to be across the board.

Rovner: Now, can you explain why all of the numbers seem to be going down? It’s not that the number of applicants are falling, it’s the number of applications.

Grover: There’s about 20,000 people that graduate from U.S. MD [medical degree] schools every year. There are another 15[,000] to 20,000 applicants for residency positions that are DO [doctor of osteopathic medicine] graduates domestically or international graduates. Could be U.S. citizens or foreign citizens.

But what we’ve tried to do for a number of years is encourage applicants to apply to a fewer number of residency programs because we found that they were out-applying, they were over-applying. Where we did some data analyses a couple of years back on diminishing returns where we said, “Look, once you apply to 15, 20, 30 programs, your likelihood of matching, I know you’re nervous, but the likelihood of matching is not going to go up. You’re going to do fine. You don’t need to apply to 60, 70, 80 programs.”

So the good news is we’re actually seeing those numbers come down by about, for U.S. medical grads, about 7% this year, which is really the first time that I can remember in the last 10 years that this has happened. So that is good news.

Rovner: And that was an explicit goal.

Grover: That was an explicit goal. We want to make this cheaper, easier, and more rational for applicants and for programs, as they have to screen people and figure out who really wants to come to their program.

So overall, we were really pleased to see that the average applicant, as they applied to programs, applied to a few less programs, which meant that in many cases they were maybe not applying to one or two states that the average applicant might’ve applied to last year. So on average, each state saw about a 10% decrease in the number of unique applicants. But that decrease was much higher when we looked at those states that had banned abortion or severely limited it.

Rovner: Eventually, all these residency positions fill though, right, because there are more applicants as you point out, more graduating medical students and incoming graduates from other countries than there are slots. So why should we care, if all of these programs are filling?

Grover: So, I think you should always care about the number of residency spots, and I know you have a long history here, as do I, in that that is the bottleneck where we have to deal with why we have physician shortages, or one of the reasons why across the board we just don’t train enough physicians.

We have increased the number of medical school spots. We have people that are graduating from DO schools, as I said, international graduates. More are applying every year than we have space for. Which means that, yes, right now every spot will fill, because if the alternative for somebody applying is, look, I either won’t get in and actually be able to train in my specialty of choice. Or, I may have to go to my third choice or 10th choice or 50th choice or 100th choice. I’d rather go to someplace than no place at all.

So yes, everything is filling, but our look at the U.S. MD seniors was in part because we believe that they are the most competitive applicants, and in some ways the most desirable applicants. They have a 95% success in the match year after year. And so we thought they would be the most sensitive to look at in terms of, hey, I’ve got a little more choice here. Maybe I won’t apply to that state where I don’t feel like I can practice medicine freely for my patients.

And I think that’s a potential problem for a lot of these states and a lot of these programs is, if the people who might’ve been applying if the laws were different, who happened to be a better match for your program, for your specialty and your community, aren’t choosing to apply there, yes, you can fill it, but maybe not with the ideal candidate. And I think that’s going to affect patients and populations and local communities in the years to come.

Rovner: When we saw the beginning of this trend last year most of the talk was about a potential shortage of OB-GYNs going forward, since physicians often stay in practice where it is that they do their residency. But now, as you mentioned, we’re seeing a decrease in applications and specialties across the board. Why would that be?

Grover: So this is an informed opinion as to why people across specialties are choosing not to apply to residencies in these states. We didn’t ask the specific people who are matching this past year, “Why did you choose to apply or not to apply to this state?”

So what we know, though, from asking questions in other surveys is that about 70% of all health professions and health profession students believe that abortion should be legal at some point during a pregnancy. If you look at some specialties like adolescent medicine, that number goes up to 96%. So No. 1, I think it’s a potential violation of what people believe should be some freedom between doctors and patients as to allowing them to have the full range of reproductive health care.

No. 2, I think the potential penalties and the laws are often viewed as being incredibly punitive and somewhat unclear. And as much as doctors hate getting sued, we really don’t want to be indicted. I know some people are fine getting indicted. We really don’t want to be indicted. And that has implications because if we’re indicted, if we’re convicted of any kind of criminal offense, we could lose our license and not be able to care for patients. And we have a long investment in trying to do so.

The third thing that I think is relevant is certainly some of the specialties we’re looking at are heavily populated by women physicians, so OB-GYN, pediatrics. But again, across the board, it’s 50% women. So I think for the women themselves that happen to be applying, there is this issue of, think about their ages, 26, 27, 28 to the mid-30s, for the most part, and there are outliers on either end. But for the most part, they are of reproductive age, and I think they want to have control over their own lives and their own health care, and make sure that all services are available to them and their families if they need it. And I think even if it’s not relevant to you as an individual, it probably is relevant to your spouse or partner or somebody else in your family. And I think that makes a huge difference when people make these choices.

Rovner: So in the end, assuming these trends continue, I mean there really is concern for what the health professional community will look like in some of these states, right?

Grover: Yeah, and I think one of the things that I tried to look at last year in an editorial for JAMA was trying to overlay the states that have already significant challenges in recruiting and retaining physicians. They tend to be a lot of the heavily rural states, Southern states, parts of the Midwest. You overlay that on a map of the 14 states now that have basically banned abortion, and there’s a pretty close match.

So I think it’s critically important for state, local officials, legislatures, governors to think about their own potential impact of passing these laws on something that they may think is critically important, which is recruiting and retaining health professionals. And as you said, about half of people who train in a state will end up staying there to practice.

And for these pipeline programs, I know places like Mississippi and Alabama will really try and recruit individuals from underserved communities, get them through high school, get them into college, get them to stay in the state for med school, stay in the state for residency. They’re 80% likely to stay in those states. You lose them at any point along the way and they’re a lot less likely to come back.

So without even telling these states, I can’t tell you what’s good for you, but you should at least figure out how to collect the data at a local level to understand the implications of your policies on the health of everybody in a state, not just women of reproductive age.

Rovner: And I assume that we’ll be hearing more about this.

Grover: I would think so, yes.

Rovner: And asking more students about it.

Grover: Yes, we will. And we get to administer something called the Graduation Questionnaire every year for all these MD students. One of the questions we just added, and hopefully we’ll have some data, my colleagues will have that by probably August or so, is asking them specifically: What role did laws around some of these social issues have in your choice of where to do your residency? And again, there is some overlap here of states that have restricted reproductive rights, transgender care, and some other issues that are probably all kind of mixed in.

Rovner: Great. We’ll have you back to talk about it then.

Grover: Great. And I’m happy to come back and talk about market consolidation, about life expectancy, the quality of U.S. health, or anything else you want.

Rovner: Atul Grover, thank you so much.

Grover: Thanks for having me.

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.

Sandhya, why don’t you go ahead and go first this week?

Raman: Great. So my story is from Ben Conarck at The Baltimore Banner, and it’s called “People With Severe Mental Illness Are Stuck in Jail. Montgomery County Is the Epicenter of the Problem.”

This is a really sad and impactful story about Montgomery County, Maryland, which is just outside of  D.C., and how they are leading to this problem in this state. And many people are on the wait list for beds and psychiatric facilities, but they’re serving pretty short sentences of 90 days or less, and just a lot of the issues there. And just the problems for criminal defendants waiting in facilities for months on end for treatment.

Rovner: And I would add, because I live there, Montgomery County, Maryland, is one of the wealthiest counties in the country, and it’s kind of embarrassing that there are people who are not where they should be because they don’t have enough beds. Alice.

Ollstein: I have a piece from Time magazine called “‘I Don’t Have Faith in Doctors Anymore.’ Women Say They Were Pressured Into Long-Term Birth Control.” And it’s about something that I’ve been hearing about from providers for a bit now, which is that IUDs are this very effective form of birth control. It’s a device implanted in the uterus, and it was supposed to be this amazing way to help people avoid unwanted pregnancies. But as with many things, it is being used coercively, according to this report.

Because a physician has to implant it and remove it, people say that, one, they were pressured into having one often right after giving birth when they were sort of not in a place to make that kind of big decision. And then people who were given one struggled to have someone remove it when they wanted that done in the future.

And so I think it’s a good reminder that these tools are not inherently good or inherently bad. They can be used unethically or ethically by providers.

Rovner: And all reproductive health care is fraught. Rachel?

Cohrs Zhang: Yes. So Nick has been on quite the tear this week. My colleague Nick Florko at Stat and I wanted to highlight a profile that he wrote. The headline is, “After Decades Fighting Big Tobacco, Cliff Douglas Now Leads a Foundation Funded by His Former Adversaries.”

And I think it just has so much nuance into just a figure who fought Big Tobacco to bring to light what they were doing over decades. And now he’s chosen to take over this organization that had, in the past, been entirely funded by a tobacco company. And so I think it’s this really interesting … what we see all the time in Washington, how people contort themselves to make that transition into the private sector, or what they choose to do with their careers after public service. This is a nontraditional public service, obviously, being an advocate in this way. But I think it will be a really interesting dynamic to watch to see how much he chooses to change the direction of the organization, how long that arrangement lasts, if he chooses to do that.

I learned a lot reading this profile, and I think it’s even more rare to see people sit down for lengthy interviews for an old-fashioned profile. So I really enjoyed the piece.

Rovner: Full disclosure, I’ve known Cliff Douglas since the 1980s when he was just a young advocate starting out on his antismoking career. It really is good piece. I also thought Nick did a really good job.

Well, my story this week is from the NPR Shots blog. It’s by Jonathan Lambert and it’s called “Why Writing by Hand Beats Typing for Thinking and Learning.” And it made me feel much better for often being the only person in a room taking notes by hand in a notebook when everyone else is on their laptop. In fact, I can type as fast as anyone, and I can definitely type faster than I can write in longhand, but I actually find I take better notes if I have to boil down what I’m listening to. And it turns out there’s science that bears that out. Now, if only we could get the schools to go back to teaching cursive, but that’s a whole different issue.

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. And happy birthday today to half of my weekly live audience: Aspen the corgi turns 4 today.

As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X or Twitter, whatever you want to call it, @jrovner. Sandhya, where are you?

Raman: @SandhyaWrites.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs Zhang: @rachelcohrs.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

President Joe Biden is working to lay out his health agenda for a second term, even as Congress races to finish its overdue spending bills for the fiscal year that began last October.

Meanwhile, Alabama lawmakers try to reopen the state’s fertility clinics over the protests of abortion opponents, and pharmacy giants CVS and Walgreens announce they are ready to begin federally regulated sales of the abortion pill mifepristone.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Lawmakers in Washington are completing work on the first batch of spending bills to avert a government shutdown. The package includes a bare-bones health bill, leaving out certain bipartisan proposals that have been in the works on drug prices and pandemic preparedness. Doctors do get some relief in the bill from Medicare cuts that took effect in January, but the pay cuts are not canceled.
• The White House is floating proposals on drug prices that include expanding Medicare negotiations to more drugs; applying negotiated prices earlier in the market life of drugs; and capping out-of-pocket maximum drug payments at $2,000 for all patients, not just seniors. At least some of the ideas have been proposed before and couldn’t clear even a Democratic-controlled Congress. But they also keep up pressure on the pharmaceutical industry as it challenges the government in court — and as Election Day nears.
• Many in public health are expressing frustration after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention softened its covid-19 isolation guidance. The change points to the need for a national dialogue about societal support for best practices in public health — especially by expanding access to paid leave and child care.
• Meanwhile, CVS and Walgreens announced their pharmacies will distribute the abortion pill mifepristone, and enthusiasm is waning for the first over-the-counter birth control pill amid questions about how patients will pay its higher-than-anticipated list price of $20 per month.
• Alabama’s governor signed a law protecting access to in vitro fertilization, granting providers immunity from the state Supreme Court’s recent “embryonic personhood” decision. But with opposition from conservative groups, is the new law also bound for the Alabama Supreme Court?

Also this week, Rovner interviews White House domestic policy adviser Neera Tanden about Biden’s health agenda.

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 “How States Giving Rights to Fetuses Could Set Up a National Case on Abortion,” by Regan McCarthy.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Stat’s  “The War on Recovery,” by Lev Facher.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: KFF Health News’ “Why Even Public Health Experts Have Limited Insight Into Stopping Gun Violence in America,” by Christine Spolar.

Sandhya Raman: The Journal’s “‘My Son Is Not There Anymore’: How Young People With Psychosis Are Falling Through the Cracks,” by Órla Ryan.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• NBC News’ “CDC Updates Covid Isolation Guidelines for People Who Test Positive,” by Erika Edwards.
• New York Magazine’s “Did Trump Really Vow to Defund Schools With Vaccine Mandates?” by Margaret Hartmann.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: The State of the Union Is … Busy

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: The State of the Union Is … BusyEpisode Number: 337Published: March 7, 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, March 7, at 9 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: Sarah Karlin-Smith, of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman, of CQ Roll Call.

Raman: Good morning.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with White House domestic policy adviser Neera Tanden about the Biden administration’s health accomplishment so far and their priorities for 2024. But first, this week’s news. It is a big week here in the nation’s capital. In addition to sitting through President Biden’s State of the Union address, lawmakers appear on the way to finishing at least some of the spending bills for the fiscal year that began last Oct. 1. Good thing, too, because the president will deliver to Congress a proposed budget for the next fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, 2024, next Monday. Sandhya, which spending bills are getting done this week, and which ones are left?

Sandhya Raman: We’re about half-and-half as of last night. The House is done with their six-bill deal that they released. Congress came to a bipartisan agreement on Sunday and released then, so the FDA is in that part, in the agriculture bill. We also have a number of health extenders that we can …

Rovner: Which we’ll get to in a second.

Raman: Now it’s on to the Senate and then to Biden’s desk, and then we still have the Labor HHS [Department of Labor and Department of Health and Human Services] bill with all of the health funding that we’re still waiting on sometime this month.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s fair to say that the half that they’re getting done now are the easy ones, right? It’s the big ones that are left.

Ollstein: Although, if they were so easy, why didn’t they get them done a long time ago? There have been a lot of fights over policy riders that have been holding things up, in addition to disagreements about spending levels, which are perennial of course. But I was very interested to see that in this first tranche of bills, Republicans dropped their insistence on a provision banning mail delivery of abortion pills through the FDA, which they had been fighting for for months and months and months, and that led to votes on that particular bill being canceled multiple times. It’s interesting that they did give up on that.

Rovner: Yes. I shouldn’t say these were the easy ones, I should say these were the easier ones. Not that there’s a reason that it’s March and they’re only just now getting them done, but they have until the 22nd to get the rest of them done. How is that looking?

Raman: We still have not seen text on those yet. If they’re able to get there, we would see that in the next week or so, before then. And it remains to be seen, that traditionally the health in Labor HHS is one of the trickiest ones to get across the finish line in a normal year, and this year has been especially difficult given, like Alice said, all of the different policy riders and different back-and-forth there. It remains to be seen how that’ll play out.

Rovner: They have a couple of weeks and we will see. All right, well as you mentioned, as part of this first spending minibus, as they like to call it, is a small package of health bills. We talked about some of these last week, but tell us what made the final cut into this current six-bill package.

Raman: It’s whittled down a lot from what I think a lot of lawmakers were hoping. It’s pretty bare-bones in terms of what we have now. It’s a lot of programs that have traditionally been added to funding bills in the past, extending the special diabetes program, community health center funding, the National Health Service Corps, some sexual risk-avoidance programs. All of these would be pegged to the end of 2024. It kind of left out a lot of the things that Congress has been working on, on health care.

Rovner: Even bipartisan things that Congress has been working for on health care.

Raman: Yeah. They didn’t come to agreement on some of the pandemic and emergency preparedness stuff. There were some provisions for the SUPPORT Act — the 2018 really big opioid law — but a lot of them were not there. The PBM [pharmacy benefit managers] reform, all of that, was not, not this round.

Rovner: But at least judging from the press releases I got, there is some relief for doctor fees in Medicare. They didn’t restore the entire 3.3% cut, I believe it is, but I think they restored all but three-quarters of a percent of the cut. It’s made doctors, I won’t say happy, but at least they got acknowledged in this package and we’ll see what happens with the rest of them. Well, by the time you hear this, the president’s State of the Union speech will have come and gone, but the White House is pitching hard some of the changes that the president will be proposing on drug prices. Sarah, how significant are these proposals? They seem to be bigger iterations of what we’re already doing.

Karlin-Smith: Right. Biden is proposing expanding the Medicare Drug [Price] Negotiation program that Congress passed through the Inflation Reduction Act. He wants to go from Medicare being able to negotiate eventually up to 20 drugs a year to up to 50. He seems to be suggesting letting drugs have a negotiated price earlier in their life, letting them have less time on the market before negotiation. Also, thinking about applying some of the provisions of the IRA right now that only apply to Medicare to people in commercial plans, so this $2,000 maximum out-of-pocket spending for patients. Then also there are penalties that drugmakers get if they raise prices above inflation that would also apply to commercial plans. He’s actually proposed a lot of this before in previous budgets and actually Democrats, if you go back in time, tried to actually get some of these things in the initial IRA and even with a Democratic-controlled capital, could not actually get Democratic agreement to go broader on some of the provisions.

Rovner: Thank you, Sen. [Joe] Manchin.

Karlin-Smith: That said, I think it is significant that Biden is still pressing on this, even if they would really need big Democratic majorities and more progressive Democratic majorities to get this passed, because it’s keeping the pressure on the pharmaceutical industry. There were times before the IRA was passed where people were saying, “Pharma just needs to take this hit, it’s not going to be as bad as they think it is. Then they’ll get a breather for a while.” They’re clearly not getting that. The public is still very concerned about drug pricing, and they’re both fighting the current IRA in court. Actually, today there’s a number of big oral arguments happening. At the same time, they’re trying to get this version of the IRA improved somehow through legislation. All at the same time Democrats are saying, “Actually, this is just the start, we’re going to keep going.” It’s a big challenge and maybe not the respite they thought they might’ve gotten after this initial IRA was passed.

Rovner: But as you point out, still a very big voting issue. All right, well I want to talk about covid, which we haven’t said in a while. Last Friday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officially changed its guidance about what people should do if they get covid. There’s been a lot of chatter about this. Sarah, what exactly got changed and why are people so upset?

Karlin-Smith: The CDC’s old guidance, if you will, basically said if you had covid, you should isolate for five days. If you go back in time, you’ll remember we probably talked about how that was controversial on its own when that first happened, because we know a lot of people are infectious and still test positive for covid much longer than five days. Now they’re basically saying, if you have covid, you can return to the public once you’re fever-free for 24 hours and your symptoms are improving. I think the implication here is, that for a lot of people, this would be before five days. They do emphasize to some degree that you should take precautions, masking, think about ventilation, maybe avoid vulnerable people if you can.

But I think there’s some in the public health world that are really frustrated by this. They feel like it’s not science- and evidence-based. We know people are going to be infectious and contagious in many cases for longer than periods of time where the CDC is saying, “Sure, go out in public, go back to work.” On the flip side, CDC is arguing, people weren’t really following their old guidance. In part because we don’t have a society set up to structurally allow them to easily do this. Most people don’t have paid sick time. They maybe don’t have people to watch their children if they’re trying to isolate from them. I think the tension is that, we’ve learned a lot from covid and it’s highlighted a lot of the flaws already in our public health system, the things we don’t do well with other respiratory diseases like flu, like RSV. And CDC is saying, “Well, we’re going to bring covid in line with those,” instead of thinking about, “OK, how can we actually improve as a society managing respiratory viruses moving forward, come up with solutions that work.”

I think there probably are ways for CDC to acknowledge some of the realities. CDC does not have the power to give every American paid sick time. But if CDC doesn’t push to say the public needs this for public health, how are we ever going to get there? I think that’s really a lot of the frustration in a lot of the public health community in particular, that they’re just capitulating to a society that doesn’t care about public health instead of really trying to push the agenda forward.

Rovner: Or a society that’s actively opposed to public health, as it sometimes seems. I know speaking for my NF1, I was sick for most of January, and I used up all my covid tests proving that I didn’t have covid. I stayed home for a few days because I felt really crappy, and when I started to feel better, I wore a mask for two weeks because, hello, that seemed to be a practical thing to do, even though I think what I had was a cold. But if I get sick again, I don’t have any more covid tests and I’m not going to take one every day because now they cost $20 a pop. Which I suspect was behind a lot of this. It’s like, “OK, if you’re sick with a respiratory ailment, stay home until you start to feel better and then be careful.” That’s essentially what the advice is, right?

Ollstein: Yeah. Although one other criticism I heard was specifically basing the new guidance on being fever-free, a lot of people don’t get a fever, they have other symptoms or they don’t have symptoms at all, and that’s even more insidious for allowing spread. I heard that criticism as well, but I completely agree with Sarah, that this seems like allowing public behavior to shape the guidance rather than trying to shape the public behavior with the guidance.

Rovner: Although some of that is how public health works, they don’t want to recommend things that they know people aren’t going to do or that they know the vast majority of people aren’t going to do. This is the difficulty of public health, which we will talk about more. While meanwhile, speaking in Virginia earlier this week, former President Donald Trump vowed to pull all federal funding for schools with vaccine mandates. Now, from the context of what he was saying, it seemed pretty clear that he was talking only about covid vaccine mandates, but that’s not what he actually said. What would it mean to lift all school vaccine mandates? That sounds a little bit scary.

Raman: That would basically affect almost every public school district nationwide. But even if it’s just covid shots, I think that’s still a little bit of a shift. You see Trump not taking as much public credit anymore for the fact that the covid vaccines were developed under his administration, Operation Warp Speed, that started under the Trump administration. It’s a little bit of a shift compared to then.

Rovner: I’m old enough to remember two cycles ago, when there were Republicans who were anti-vaccine or at least anti-vaccine curious, and the rest of the Republican Party was like, “No, no, no, no, no.” That doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. Now it seems to be much more mainstream to be anti-vax in general. Cough, cough. We see the measles outbreak in Florida, so we will clearly watch that space, too.

All right, moving on to abortion. Later this month, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case that could severely restrict distribution of the abortion pill mifepristone. But in the meantime, pharmacy giants, CVS and Walgreens have announced they will begin distributing the abortion pill at their pharmacies. Alice, why now and what does this mean?

Ollstein: It’s interesting that this came more than a year after the big pharmacies were given permission to do this. They say it took this long because they had to get all of these systems up in place to make sure that only certified pharmacists were filling prescriptions from certified prescribing doctors. All of this is required because when the Biden administration, when the FDA, moved to allow this form of distribution of the abortion pill, they still left some restrictions known as REMS [risk evaluation and mitigation strategies] in place. That made it take a little more time, more bureaucracy, more box checking, to get to this point. It is interesting that given the uncertainty with the Supreme Court, they are moving forward with this. It’s this interesting state-versus-federal issue, because we reported a year ago that Walgreens and CVS would not distribute the pills in states where Republican state attorneys general have threatened them with lawsuits.

So, they’ve noted the uncertainty at the state level, but even with this uncertainty at the federal level with the Supreme Court, which could come in and say this form of distribution is not allowed, they’re still moving forward. It is limited. It’s not going to be, even in blue states where abortion is protected by law, they’re not going to be at every single CVS. They’re going to do a slower, phased rollout, see how it goes. I’m interested in seeing if any problems arise. I’m also interested in seeing, anti-abortion groups have vowed to protest these big pharmacy chains for making this medication available. They’ve disrupted corporate meetings, they’ve protested outside brick-and-mortar pharmacies, and so we’ll see if any of that continues and has an effect as well.

Rovner: It’s hard to see how the anti-abortion groups though could have enough people to protest every CVS and Walgreens selling the abortion pill. That will be an interesting numbers situation. Well, in a case of not-so-great timing, if only for the confusion potential, also this week we learned that the first approved over-the-counter birth control pill, called Opill, is finally being shipped. Now, this is not the abortion pill. It won’t require a prescription, that’s the whole point of it being over-the-counter. But I’ve seen a lot of advocacy groups that worked on this for years now complaining that the $20 per month that the pill is going to cost, it’s still going to be too much for many who need it. Since it’s over-the-counter, it’s not going to be covered by most insurance. This is a separate issue of its own that’s a little bit controversial.

Karlin-Smith: You can with over-the-counter drugs, if you have a flexible spending account or an HSA or something else, you may be able to use money that’s somehow connected to your health insurance benefit or you’re getting some tax breaks on it. However, I think this over-the-counter pill is probably envisioned most for people that somehow don’t have insurance, because we know the Affordable Care Act provides birth control methods with no out-of-pocket costs for people. So if you have insurance, most likely you would be getting a better deal getting a prescription and going that route for the same product or something similar.

The question becomes then, does this help the people who fall in those gaps who are probably likely to have less financial means to begin with? There’s been some polling and things that suggest this may be too high a price point for them. I know there are some discounts on the price. Essentially if you can buy three months upfront or even some larger quantities, although again that means you then have to have that larger sum of money upfront, so that’s a big tug of war. I think the companies argue this is pretty similar pricing to other over-the-counter drug products in terms of volume and stuff, so we’ll see what happens.

Rovner: I think they were hoping it was going to be more like $5 a month and not $20 a month. I think that came as a little bit of a disappointment to a lot of these groups that have been working on this for a very long time.

Ollstein: Just quickly, the jury is also still out on insurance coverage, including advocacy groups are also pressuring public insurance, Medicaid, to come out and say they’ll cover it as well. So we’ll keep an eye on that.

Rovner: Yeah, although Medicaid does cover prescription birth control. All right, well let us catch up on the IVF [in vitro fertilization] controversy in Alabama, where there was some breaking news over last night. When we left off last week, the Alabama Legislature was trying to come up with legislation that would grant immunity to fertility clinics or their staff for “damaging or killing fertilized embryos,” without overtly overruling the state Supreme Court decision from February that those embryos are, “extrauterine children.” Alice, how’s that all going?

Ollstein: Well, it was very interesting to see a bunch of anti-abortion groups come out against the bill that Alabama, mostly Republicans, put together and passed and the Republican governor signed it into law. The groups were asking her to veto it; they didn’t want that kind of immunity for discarding or destroying embryos. Now what we will see is if there’s going to be a lawsuit that lands this new law right back in front of the same state Supreme Court that just opened this whole Pandora’s box in the first place, that’s very possible. That’s one thing I’m watching. I guess we should also watch for other states to take up this issue. A lot of states have fetal personhood language, either in their constitutions or in statute or something, so really any of those states could become the next Alabama. All it would take is someone to bring a court challenge and try to get a similar ruling.

Rovner: I was amused though that the [Alabama] Statehouse passed the immunity law yesterday, Wednesday during the day. But the Senate passed it later in the evening and the governor signed it. I guess she didn’t want to let it hang there while these big national anti-abortion groups were asking her to veto it. So by the time I woke up this morning, it was already law.

Ollstein: It’s just been really interesting, because the anti-abortion groups say they support IVF, but they came out against the Democrats’ federal bill that would provide federal protections. They came out against nonbinding House resolutions that Republicans put forward saying they support IVF, and they came out against this Alabama fix. So it’s unclear what form of IVF, if any, they do support.

Rovner: Meanwhile, in Kentucky, the state Senate has overwhelmingly passed a bill that would permit a parent to seek child support retroactively to cover pregnancy expenses up until the child reaches age 1. So you have until the child turns 1 to sue for child support. Now, this isn’t technically a “personhood” bill, and it’s legit that there are expenses associated with becoming a parent even before a baby is born, but it’s skating right up to the edge of that whole personhood thing.

It brings me to my extra credit for this week, which I’m going to do early. It’s a story from NPR called, “How States Giving Rights to Fetuses Could Set Up a National Case on Abortion,” by Regan McCarthy of member station WFSU in Tallahassee. In light of Florida’s tabling of a vote on its personhood bill in the wake of the Alabama ruling last week, the story poses a question I hadn’t really thought about in the context of the personhood debate, whether some of these partway recognition laws, not just the one in Kentucky, but there was one in Georgia last year, giving tax deductions for children who are not yet born as long as you could determine a heartbeat in the second half of the year, because obviously in the first half of the year the child would’ve been born.

Whether those are part of a very long game that will give courts the ability to put them all together at some point and declare not just embryos but zygotes children. Is this in some ways the same playbook that anti-abortion forces use to get Roe [v. Wade] overturned? That was a very, very long game and at least this story speculates that that might be what they’re doing now with personhood.

Ollstein: Some anti-abortion groups are very open that it is what they want to do. They have been seeding the idea in amicus briefs and state policies. They’ve been trying to tuck personhood language into all of these things to eventually prompt such a ruling, ideally from the Supreme Court and, in their view. So whether that moves forward remains to be seen, but it’s certainly the next goal. One of many next goals on the horizon.

Rovner: Yes, one of many. All right, well moving on. Last week I called the cyberattack on Change Healthcare, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, the biggest under-covered story in health care. Well, it is not under-covered anymore. Two weeks later, thousands of hospitals, pharmacies, and doctor practices still can’t get their claims paid. It seems that someone, though it’s not entirely clear who, paid the hackers $22 million in ransom. But last time I checked the systems were still not fully up. I saw a letter this morning from the Medicaid directors worrying about Medicaid programs getting claims fulfilled. How big a wake-up call has this been for the health industry, Sarah? This is a bigger deal than anybody expected.

Karlin-Smith: There’s certainly been cyberattacks on parts of the health system before in hospitals. I think the breadth of this, because it’s UnitedHealth [Group], is really significant. Particularly, because it seems like some health systems were concerned that the broader United network of companies and systems would get impacted, so they sort of disconnected from things that weren’t directly changed health care, and that ended up having broader ramifications. It’s one consequence of United being such a big monolith.

Then the potential that United paid a ransom here, which is not 100% clear what happened, is very worrisome. Again, because there’s this sense that, that will then increase the — first, you’re paying the people that then might go back and do this, so you’re giving them more money to hack. But also again, it sets up a precedent, that you can hack health systems and they will pay you. Because it is so dangerous, particularly when you start to get involved in attacking the actual systems that provide people care. So much, if you’ve been in a hospital lately or so forth, is run on computer systems and devices, so it is incredibly disruptive, but you don’t want to incentivize hackers to be attacking that.

Rovner: I certainly learned through this how big Change Healthcare, which I had never heard of before this hack and I suspect most people even who do health policy had never heard of before this attack, how embedded they are in so much of the health care system. These hackers knew enough to go after this particular system that affected so much in basically one hack. I’m imagining as this goes forward, for those who didn’t listen to last week’s podcast, we also talked about the Justice Department’s new investigation into the size of UnitedHealth [Group], an antitrust investigation for… It was obviously not prompted by this, it was prompted by something else, but I think a lot of people are thinking about, how big should we let one piece of the health care system get in light of all these cyberattacks?

All right, well we’ll obviously come back to this issue, too, as it resolves, one would hope. That is the news for this week. Now we will play my interview with White House domestic policy adviser Neera Tanden, and then we will come back with our extra credits.

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Neera Tanden, domestic policy adviser to President Biden, and director of the White House Domestic Policy Council. For those of you who don’t already know her, Neera has spent most of the last two decades making health policy here in Washington, having worked on health issues for Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama, and now President Joe Biden. Neera, thank you so much for joining us.

Neera Tanden: It’s really great to be with you, Julie.

Rovner: As we tape this, the State of the Union is still a few hours away and I know there’s stuff you can’t talk about yet. But in general, health care has been a top-of-mind issue for the Biden administration, and I assume it will continue to be. First, remind us of some of the highlights of the president’s term so far on health care.

Tanden: It’s a top concern for the president. It’s a top issue for us, but that’s also because it’s really a top issue for voters. We know voters have had significant concerns about access, but also about costs. That is why this administration has really done more on costs than any administration. This is my third, as you noted, so I’m really proud of all the work we’ve done on prescription drugs, on lowering costs of health care in the exchanges, on really trying to think through the cost burden for families when it comes to health care.

When we talk about prescription drugs, it’s a wide-ranging agenda, there are things or policies that people have talked about for decades, like Medicare negotiating drug prices, that this president is the first president to truly deliver on, which he will talk about in the State of the Union. But we’ve also innovated in different policies through the Inflation Reduction Act, the inflation rebates, which ensure that drug companies don’t raise the price of drugs faster than inflation. When they do, they pay a rebate both to Medicare but also ultimately to consumers. Those our high-impact policies that will really take a comprehensive approach on lowering prices.

Rovner: Yet for all the president has accomplished, and people who listen to the podcast regularly will know that it has been way more than was expected given the general polarization around Washington right now. Why does the president seem to get so little credit for getting done more things than a lot of his predecessors were able to do in two terms?

Tanden: Well, I think people do recognize the importance of prescription drug coverage. And health care as an issue that the president — it’s not my place to talk about politics, but he does have significant advantages on issues like health care. That I think, is because we’ve demonstrated tangible results. People understand what $35 insulin means. What I really want to point to in the Medicare negotiation process is, Sept. 1, Medicare will likely have a list of drugs which are significantly lower costs, that process is underway. But my expectation, you know I’m not part of it, that’s being negotiated by CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] and HHS, but we expect to have a list of 10 drugs that are high-cost items for seniors in which they’ll see a price that is lower than what they pay now. That’s another way in which, like $35 insulin, we’ll have tangible proof points of what this administration will be delivering for families.

Rovner: There’s now a record number of people who have health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, which I remember you also worked on. But in surveys, as you noted, voters now say they’re less worried about coverage and more worried about not being able to pay their medical bills even if they have insurance. I know a lot of what you’re doing on the drug side is limited to Medicare. Now, do you expect you’re going to be able to expand that to everybody else?

Tanden: First and foremost, our drug prices will be public, as you know. And as you know, prices in Medicare have been able to influence other elements of the health care system. That is really an important part of this. Which is that again, those prices will be public and our hope is that the private sector adopts those prices, because they’re ones that are negotiated. We expect this to affect, not just seniors, but families throughout the country.

There are additional actions we’ll be taking on Medicare drug negotiation. That will be a significant portion of the president’s remarks on health care, not just what we’ve been able to do in Medicare drug negotiation, but how we can really build on that and really ensure that we are dramatically reducing drug costs throughout the system. I look forward to hearing the president on that topic.

Rovner: I know we’re also going to get the budget next week. Are there any other big health issues that will be a priority this year?

Tanden: The president will have a range of policies on issues like access to sickle cell therapies, ensuring affordable generic drugs are accessible to everybody, ensuring that we are building on the Affordable Care Act gains. You mentioned this, but I just really do want to step back and talk about access under the Affordable Care Act. Because I think if people started off at the beginning of this administration and said the ACA marketplaces close to double, people would’ve been shocked. You know this well, a lot of people thought the exchanges were maximizing their potential. There are a lot of people who may not be interested in that, but the president had, in working with Congress, made the exchanges more affordable.

We’ve seen record adoption: 21 million people covered through the ACA exchanges today, when it was 12 million when we started. That’s 9 million more people who have the security of affordable health care coverage. I think it’s a really important point, which is, why are people signing up? Because it is a lot more affordable? Most people can get a very affordable plan. People are saving on average $800, and that affordability is crucial. Of course we have to do more work to reduce costs throughout the health care system. But it’s an important reminder that when you lower drug costs, you also have the ability to lower premiums and it’s another way in which we can drive health care costs down. I would be genuinely honest with you, which is, I did not think we would be able to do all of these things at the beginning of the administration. The president has been laser-focused on delivering, and as you know from your work on the ACA, he did think it was a big deal.

Rovner: I have that on a T-shirt.

Tanden: A lot of people have talked about different things, but he has been really focused on strengthening the ACA. He’ll talk about how we need to strengthen it in the future, and how that is another choice that we face this year, whether we’re going to entertain repealing the ACA or build on it and ensure that the millions of people who are using the ACA have the security to know that it’s there for them into the future. Not just on access, but that also means protections for preexisting conditions, ensuring women can no longer be discriminated against, the lifetime annual limits. There’s just a variety of ways that ACA has transformed the health care system to be much more focused on consumers.

Rovner: Last question. Obviously reproductive health, big, big issue this year. IVF in particular has been in the news these past couple of weeks, thanks to the Alabama Supreme Court. Is there anything that President Biden can do using his own executive power to protect access to reproductive health technology? And will we hear him at some point address this whole personhood movement that we’re starting to see bubble back up?

Tanden: I think the president will be very forceful on reproductive rights and will discuss the whole set of freedoms that are at stake and reproductive rights and our core freedom at stake this year. You and I both know that attacks on IVF are actually just the effectuation of the attacks on Roe. What animates the attacks on Roe, would ultimately affect IVF. I felt like I was a voice in the wilderness for the last couple of decades, where people were saying … They’re just really focused on Roe v. Wade. It won’t have any impact on IVF or [indecipherable] they’re just scare tactics when you talk about IVF.

Obviously the ideological underpinnings of attacks on Roe ultimately mean that you would have to take on IVF, which is exactly what women are saying. I think the president will speak forcefully to the attacks on women’s dignity that women are seeing throughout this country, and how this ideological battle has translated to misery and pain for millions of women. Misery and pain for their families. And has really reached the point where women who are desperate to have a family are having their reproductive rights restricted because of the ideological views of a minority of the country. That is a huge issue for women, a huge issue for the country, and exactly why he’ll talk about moving forward on freedoms and not moving us back, sometimes decades, on freedom.

Rovner: Well, Neera Tanden, you have a lot to keep you busy. I hope we can call on you again.

Tanden: There’s few people who know the health care system as well as Julie Rovner, so it’s just a pleasure to be with 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. I already did mine. Sandhya, why don’t you go next?

Raman: My extra credit this week is called “My Son Is Not There Anymore: How Young People With Psychosis Are Falling Through the Cracks,” and it’s by Órla Ryan for The Journal. This was a really interesting story about schizophrenia in Ireland and just how the earlier someone’s symptoms are treated the better the outcome. But a lot of children and minors with psychosis and schizophrenia struggle to get access to the care they need and just fall through the cracks of being transferred from one system to another, especially if they’re also dealing with disabilities. If some of these symptoms are treated before puberty, the severity is likely to go down a lot and they’re much less likely to experience psychosis. She takes a really interesting look at a specific case and some of the consequences there.

Rovner: I feel like we don’t look enough at what other countries health systems are doing because we could all learn from each other. Alice, why don’t you go next?

Ollstein: I have a piece by KFF Health News called “Why Even Public Health Experts Have Limited Insight Into Stopping Gun Violence in America.” It’s looking at the toll taken by the long-standing restrictions on federal funding for research into gun violence, investigating it as a public health issue. Only recently this has started to erode at the federal level and some funding has been approved for this research, but it is so small compared to the death toll of gun violence. This article sort of argues that lacking that data for so many years is why a lot of the quote-unquote “solutions” that places have tried to implement to prevent gun violence, just don’t work. They haven’t worked, they haven’t stopped these mass shootings, which continue to happen. So, arguing that, if we had better data on why things happen and how to make it less lethal, and safe, in various spaces, that we could implement some things that actually work.

Rovner: Yeah, we didn’t have the research just as this problem was exploding and now we are paying the price. Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: I looked at the first in a Stat News series by Lev Facher, “The War on Recovery: How the U.S. Is Sabotaging Its Best Tools to Prevent Deaths in the Opioid Epidemic.” It looks at why the U.S. has had access to cheap effective medicines that help reduce the risk of overdose and death for people that are struggling with opioid-use disorder haven’t actually been able, in most cases, to get access to these drugs, methadone and buprenorphine.

The reasons range from even people not being allowed to take the drugs when they’re in prison, to not being able to hold certain jobs if you’re taking these prescription medications, to Narcotics Anonymous essentially banning people from coming to those meetings if they use these drugs, to doctors not being willing or open to prescribing them. Then of course, there’s what always seems to come up these days, the private equity angle. Which is that methadone clinics are becoming increasingly owned by private equity and they’ve actually pushed back on and lobbied against policies that would make it easier for people to get methadone treatment. Because one big barrier to methadone treatment is, right now you largely have to go every day to a clinic to get your medicine, which it can be difficult to incorporate into your life if you need to hold a job and take care of kids and so forth.

It’s just a really fascinating dive into why we have the tools to make what is really a terrible crisis that kills so many people much, much better in the U.S. but we’re just not using them. Speaking of how other countries handle it, the piece goes a little bit into how other countries have had more success in actually being open to and using these tools and the differences between them and the U.S.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a really good story. 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, or @julierovner at Bluesky or @julie.rovner at Threads. . Sarah, where are you these days?

Karlin-Smith: Trying mostly to be on Blue Sky, but on X, Twitter a little bit at either @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @alicemiranda on Blue Sky, and @AliceOllstein on X.

Rovner: Sandhya.

Raman: @SandhyaWrites on X and on Blue Sky.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

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.

Reverberations from the Alabama Supreme Court’s first-in-the-nation ruling that embryos are legally children continued this week, both in the states and in Washington. As Alabama lawmakers scrambled to find a way to protect in vitro fertilization services without directly denying the “personhood” of embryos, lawmakers in Florida postponed a vote on the state’s own “personhood” law. And in Washington, Republicans worked to find a way to satisfy two factions of their base: those who support IVF and those who believe embryos deserve full legal rights.

Meanwhile, Congress may finally be nearing a funding deal for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. And while a few bipartisan health bills may catch a ride on the overall spending bill, several other priorities, including an overhaul of the pharmacy benefit manager industry, failed to make the cut.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, Riley Griffin of Bloomberg News, and Joanne Kenen of Johns Hopkins University’s schools of nursing and public health and Politico Magazine.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories.

Riley Griffin
Bloomberg

@rileyraygriffin

Read Riley's stories.

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Lawmakers are readying short-term deals to keep the government funded and running for at least a few more weeks, though some health priorities like preparing for a future pandemic and keeping down prescription drug prices may not make the cut.
• After the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision that frozen embryos are people, Republicans find themselves divided over the future of IVF. The emotionally charged debate over the procedure — which many conservatives, including former Vice President Mike Pence, believe should remain available — is causing turmoil for the party. And Democrats will no doubt keep reminding voters about it, highlighting the repercussions of the conservative push into reproductive health care.
• A significant number of physicians in Idaho are leaving the state or the field of reproductive care entirely because of its strict abortion ban. With many hospitals struggling with the cost of labor and delivery services, the ban is only making it harder for women in some areas to get care before, during, and after childbirth — whether they need abortion care or not.
• A major cyberattack targeting the personal information of patients enrolled in a health plan owned by UnitedHealth Group is drawing attention to the heightened risks of consolidation in health care. Meanwhile, the Justice Department is separately investigating UnitedHealth for possible antitrust violations.
• “This Week in Health misinformation”: Panelist Joanne Kenen explains how efforts to prevent wrong information about a new vaccine for RSV have been less than successful.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Greer Donley, an associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, about how a 150-year-old anti-vice law that’s still on the books could be used to ban abortion nationwide.

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

Julie Rovner: ProPublica’s “Their States Banned Abortion. Doctors Now Say They Can’t Give Women Potential Lifesaving Care,” by Kavitha Surana.

Rachel Cohrs: The New York Times’ “$1 Billion Donation Will Provide Free Tuition at a Bronx Medical School,” by Joseph Goldstein.

Joanne Kenen: Axios’ “An Unexpected Finding Suggests Full Moons May Actually Be Tough on Hospitals,” by Tina Reed.

Riley Griffin: Bloomberg News’ “US Seeks to Limit China’s Access to Americans’ Personal Data,” by Riley Griffin and Mackenzie Hawkins.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• The Washington Post’s “Florida Lawmakers Postpone ‘Fetal Personhood’ Bill After Alabama IVF Ruling,” by Lori Rozsa.
• Stat’s “Congress Punts on PBM Reform Efforts,” by Rachel Cohrs and John Wilkerson.
• Politico Magazine’s “There’s a New Life-Saving Vaccine. Why Won’t People Take It?” by Joanne Kenen.
• Stat’s “Experts Say Scale of Change Cyberattack Shows Risks of Centralized Claims Processing,” by Brittany Trang, Tara Bannow, and Bob Herman.
• The Wall Street Journal’s “U.S. Opens UnitedHealth Antitrust Probe,” by Anna Wilde Mathews and Dave Michaels.
• CNN’s “Opinion: It’s Too Dangerous to Allow This Antiquated Law to Exist Any Longer,” by David S. Cohen, Greer Donley, and Rachel Rebouché.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Alabama’s IVF Ruling Still Making Waves

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Alabama’s IVF Ruling Still Making WavesEpisode Number: 336Published: Feb. 29, 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, Feb. 29, at 10 a.m. Happy leap day, everyone. 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 Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Riley Ray Griffin of Bloomberg News.

Riley Griffin: Hello, hello.

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University schools of nursing and public health and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with University of Pittsburgh law professor Greer Donley about that 150-year-old Comstock Act we’ve talked about so much lately. But first, this week’s news.

So as we tape this morning, the latest in a series of short-term spending bills for the fiscal year that began almost five months ago, is a day and a half away from expiring, and the short-term bill for the rest of the government is 15 days from expiring. And apparently the House and Senate are in the process of preparing yet another pair of short-term bills to keep the government open for another week each, making the new deadlines March 8 and March 22. I should point out that the Food and Drug Administration is included in the first set of spending bills that would expire, and the rest of HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] is in the second batch.

So what are the chances that this time Congress can finish up the spending bills for fiscal 2024? Rachel, I call this Groundhog Day, except February’s about to be over.

Cohrs: Yeah, it’s definitely looking better. I think this is the CR [continuing resolution] where, as I’m thinking about it, the adults are in the room and the negotiations are actually happening. Because we had a couple of fake-outs there, where nobody was really taking it seriously, but I think we are finally at a place where they do have some agreement on some spending bills. The House hopefully will be passing some of them, and I’m optimistic that they’ll get it at least close within that March 8-March 22 time frame to extend us out a few more months until we get to do this all over again in September.

At least right now, which it could change, they do have a couple of weeks, but it’s looking like the main kind of health care provisions that we were looking at are going to be more of an end-of-year conversation than happening this spring.

Rovner: Which is anticipating my next question, which is a bunch of smaller bipartisan bills that were expected to catch a ride on the spending bill train seemed to have been jettisoned because lawmakers couldn’t reach agreement. Although it does look like a handful will make it to the president’s desk in this next round, and its last round, of fiscal spending bills for fiscal 2024.

Let’s start with the bills that are expected to be included when we finally get to these spending bills, presumably in March.

Cohrs: So, from my reporting, it sounds like that there’s going to be an extension of funding for the really truly urgent programs that are expiring. We’re talking community health center funding, funding for some public health programs. It’s funding for safety-net hospitals through Medicaid. Those policies might be extended. There’s a chance that there could be some bump in Medicare payments for doctors. I haven’t seen a final number on that yet, but that’s at least in the conversation for this round.

Again, there’s going to be more cuts at the end of this year. So, I think we’ll be continuing to have this conversation, but those look like they’re in for now. Again, we don’t have final numbers, but that’s kind of what we’re expecting the package to look like.

Kenen: And the opioids is under what you described as public health, right, or is that still up in the air?

Cohrs: I think we’re talking SUPPORT Act; I think that is up in the air, from my understanding. With public health programs talking, like, special diabetes reauthorization — there are a couple more small-ball things, but I think SUPPORT Act, PAHPA [Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act], to my understanding, are still up in the air. We’ll just have to wait for text. That hopefully comes soon.

Rovner: Riley, I see you nodding too. Is that what you’re hearing?

Griffin: Yeah. Questions about PAHPA, the authorizations for pandemic and emergency response activities, have been front of mind for folks for months and months, particularly given the timing, right? We are seeing this expire at a time when we’ve left the biggest health crisis of our generation, and seeing that punted further down the road I think will come as a big disappointment to the world of pandemic preparedness and biodefense, but perhaps not altogether unexpected.

Rovner: So Rachel, I know there were some sort of bigger things that clearly got left on the cutting room floor, like legislation to do something about pharmacy benefit managers and site-neutral payments in Medicare. Those are, at least for the moment, shelved, right?

Cohrs: Yes. That’s from my understanding. Again, I will say now they bought themselves a couple more weeks, so who knows? Sometimes a near-death experience is what it takes to get people moving in this town. But the most recent information I have is that site-neutral payments for administering drugs in physicians’ offices, that has been shelved until the end of the year and then also reforms to how PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers] operate. There’s just a lot of different policies floating around and a lot of different committees and they just didn’t come to the table and hash it out in time. And I think leadership just lost patience with them.

They do see that there’s another bite at the apple at the end of the year. We do have a lot of members retiring, Cathy McMorris Rodgers on the House side, maybe [Sen.] Bernie Sanders. He has not announced he’s running for reelection yet. So I think that’s something to keep in mind for the end of the year. And there also is a big telehealth reauthorization coming up, so I think they view that as a wildly popular policy that’s going to be really expensive and it’s going to be another … give them some more time to just hash out these differences.

Kenen: I would also point out that this annual fight about Medicare doctor payments was something that was supposedly permanently fixed. Julie and I spent, and many other reporters, spent countless hours staking out hallways in Congress about this obscure thing that was called SGR, the sustainable growth rate, but everyone called it the “doc fix.” It was this fight every year that went on and on and on about Medicare rates and then they replaced it and it was supposed to be, “We will never have to deal with this again.”

I decided I would never write another story about it after the best headline I ever wrote, which was, “What’s up, doc fix?” But here we are again. Every single year, there’s a fight about …

Rovner: Although this isn’t the SGR, it’s just …

Kenen: They got rid of SGR, that era was over. But what we’ve learned is that era will probably never be over. Every single year, there will be a lobbying blitz and a fight about Medicare Advantage and about Medicare physician pay. It’s like leap year, but it happens every year instead of every four.

Rovner: Because lobbyists need to get paid too.

All right, well, I want to turn to abortion where the fallout continues from that Alabama Supreme Court ruling earlier this month that found frozen embryos are legally children. Republicans, in particular, are caught in an almost impossible position between portions of their base who genuinely believe that a fertilized egg is a unique new person deserving of full legal rights and protections, and those who oppose abortion but believe that discarding unused embryos as part of the in vitro fertilization process is a morally acceptable way for couples to have babies.

In Alabama, where the ruling has not just stopped IVF clinics from operating in the state, but has also made it impossible for those in the midst of an IVF cycle to take their embryos elsewhere because the companies that would transport them are also worried about liability, the Republican-dominated legislature is scrambling to find a way to allow IVF to resume in the state without directly contradicting the court’s ruling that “personhood” starts at fertilization.

This seems to be quite a tightrope. I mean, Riley, I see you nodding. Can they actually do this? Is there a solution on the table yet?

Griffin: No, I don’t think there’s a solution on the table yet, and there are eight clinics in Alabama that do this work, according to the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]. Three of them have paused IVF treatment across the board. We’ve been in touch with these clinics as days go by as we see some of these developments, and they’re not changing their policies yet. Some of these efforts by Republicans to assure that there won’t be criminal penalties, they’re not reassuring them enough.

So, it certainly is a tightrope for providers and patients. It’s also a tightrope, as you mentioned, Julie, for the Republican Party, which is divided on this matter, and for Republican voters, who are also divided on this matter. But ultimately, this whole conversation comes back to what constitutes a human being? What constitutes a person? And the strategy of giving rights to an embryo allows abortion laws to be even more restrictive across this country.

Rovner: Yeah, I can’t tell you how many stories I’ve written about “When does life begin?” over the last 30 years, because that’s really what this comes down to. Does life begin at fertilization? Does it begin … I mean, doctors, I have learned this over the years, that conception is actually not fertilization. Conception is when basically a fertilized egg implants in a woman’s uterus. That’s when pregnancy begins. So there’s this continuing religious and scientific and ethical and kind of a quagmire that now is front and center again.

Joanne, you wanted to add something?

Kenen: No. I mean, I thought [Sen.] Lindsey Graham had one of the best quotes I’ve seen, which is, “Nobody’s ever been born in a freezer.” So this is a theological question that is turning into a political question. And even the proposed legislation in Alabama, which would give the clinics immunity or a pardon, I mean, pardon means you committed a crime. In this case, a murder, but you were pardoned for it. I mean, I don’t think that’s necessarily … and it’s only good for this was a stopgap that would, if it passes, I believe it would be just till early 2025.

So it might get these clinics open for a while. They may come up with some way of getting families that are in the middle of fertility treatments to be able to complete it, but other states could actually go the way Alabama went. We have no guarantee. There are people pushing for that in some of the more conservative states, so this may spread. The attempt in Congress, in the Senate, to bring up a bill that would address it …

Rovner: We’ll get to that in a second.

Kenen: I mean, Alabama’s a conservative state, but the governor, who was a conservative anti-abortion governor, has said she wants to reopen the clinics and protect them, but they haven’t come up with the formula to do that yet.

Rovner: So speaking of other states, when this decision came down in Alabama, Florida was preparing to pass its own personhood bill, but now that vote has been delayed at the request of the bill’s sponsor. The, I think, initial reaction to the Alabama decision was that it would spur similar action in other states, as you were just saying, Joanne, but is it possible that the opposite will happen, that it will stop action in other states because those who are pushing it are going to see that there’s a huge divide here?

Griffin: That hesitation certainly signals that that’s a possibility. The pause in pushing forward that path in Florida is a real signal that there is going to be more debate within the Republican Party.

One thing I do want to mention is a lot of focus has been on whether clinics in Alabama or otherwise would stop IVF treatment altogether. But I think equally important is how the clinics that are continuing to offer IVF treatment, what changes they’re making. The ones that we’re seeing, are speaking with in Alabama that are continuing to offer IVF, are changing their consent forms. They are fertilizing fewer eggs, they’re freezing eggs, but they’re not fertilizing them because they don’t want to have excess wastage, in their perspective, that could lead them to a place of liability.

So all these things ultimately have ramifications for patients. That is more costly. It means a longer timeline. It also means fewer shots on goal. It means that it is potentially harder for you to get pregnant, at the end of the day. So I want to center the fact that clinics that are continuing to offer IVF are facing real changes here too.

Rovner: We know from Texas that when states try to indemnify, saying, “Well, we won’t prosecute you,” that that’s really not good enough because doctors don’t want to run the chance of ending up in court, having to hire lawyers. I mean, even if they’re unlikely to be convicted and have their licenses taken away, just being charged is hard enough. And I think that’s what’s happening with doctors with some of these abortion exceptions, and that’s what’s happening with these IVF clinics in places where there’s personhood.

Sorry, Joanne. Go ahead.

Kenen: Egg-freezing technology has gotten better than it was just a few years ago, but egg-freezing technology, to the best of my knowledge, egg-freezing technology, though improved, is nowhere near as good as freezing an embryo. Particularly now they can bring embryos out to what they call the blastocyst stage. It’s about five days. They have a better chance of successful implantation.

In addition to the expense of IVF, and it’s expensive and most people don’t have insurance cover[age] for it, it means you’re going through drugs and treatment and all of us have had friends, I think, who’ve gone through it or relatives. It is just an incredibly stressful, emotionally painful process.

Rovner: Well, you’re pumping yourself full of hormones to create more eggs, so yeah.

Kenen: And you’re also trying to get pregnant. If you’re spending $20,000 a cycle or whatever it is, and pumping yourself full of hormones, doing all this, it means that having a child is of utmost importance to you.

And the emotional trauma of this, if you listen to the … we’ve heard interviews in the last few days of women who were about to have a transfer and things like that, the heartbreak is intense, and fertility is not like catching a cold. It’s really stressful and sad, and this is just causing anguish to families trying to have a child, trying to have a first child, trying to have a second child, whatever, or trying to have a child because there’s a health issue and they want to do the pre-implantation genetic testing so that they don’t have another child die. I mean, it’s really complicated and terrible costs on all kinds of costs, physical, emotional, and financial.

Rovner: Yeah, there are lots of layers to this.

Well, meanwhile, this decision has begun to have repercussions here on Capitol Hill. In the Senate, the Democrats are, again, while it’s in the news, trying to force Republicans into taking a stand on this issue by bringing up a bill that would guarantee nationwide access to IVF. This is a bill that they tried to bring up before and was blocked by Republicans. On Wednesday, a half a dozen senators led by Illinois’ Tammy Duckworth, a veteran who used IVF to have her two children, chided Republicans on the floor who failed again to let them bring up the IVF bill. This time, as last time, it was blocked by Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi.

I imagine the Democrats aren’t going to let this go anytime soon though. They certainly indicated that this is not their last attempt at this.

Kenen: No. Why should they? If anyone thought that the politics of abortion were going to subside by November, this has just given it … I don’t even have a word for how much it’s been reinvigorated. This is going to stick in people’s minds, and Republicans are divided on IVF, but there’s no path forward. Democrats are going to be trying again and again, if they can, and they’re going to remind voters of it again and again.

Rovner: And in the Republican House, they’re scrambling to figure out again, as in Alabama, how to demonstrate support for IVF without running afoul of their voters who are fetal personhood supporters.

Just to underline how delicate this all is, the personhood supporting anti-abortion group, Susan B. Anthony [Pro-Life America], put out a statement this week, not just thrashing the Democrats’ bill, which one would expect, but also the work going on by Republicans in Alabama and in the U.S. House for not going far enough. They point out that Louisiana has a law that allows for IVF, but not for the destruction of leftover embryos. Although that means, as Riley was saying before, those embryos have to be stored out of state, which adds to the already high cost of IVF.

It is really hard to imagine how Republicans at both the state and federal level are going to find their way out of this thicket.

Kenen: It’s a reproductive pretzel.

Griffin: It’s a reproductive pretzel where two-thirds of Americans say frozen embryos shouldn’t be considered people. So I mean, there is data to suggest that this isn’t a winning selling point for the Republican Party, and we saw that play out with presidential candidate Donald Trump immediately distancing himself from the Alabama Supreme Court decision. So, what a pretzel it is.

It’s going to be interesting to see how this pans out as the logistical hurdles continue to arise. And some are basic. I mean, I spoke last week with one clinic in Alabama that said that they had had dozens, I think they said 30 to 40, embryos that had been abandoned over decades going back as 2008, and they had tried to reach people by phone, by mail, by email. They had just been left behind. What do you do in that situation? They had been prepared to dispose of those embryos and now they’re sitting on shelves. Is that the answer? Is the only answer to have shelves and shelves of frozen embryos?

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, it is. It is definitely a pretzel.

Kenen: There was a move at one point to allow them to be adopted. I think …

Rovner: It’s still there. It’s still there.

Kenen: Right, but I don’t know what kind of consent you need. I mean, if the situations where someone left the frozen embryo and doesn’t respond or their email, they’ve changed their email or whatever, there may be some kind of way out for this mess that involves the possibility of adopting them at some point down the road, and they may not be biologically viable by that point. But when I was thinking of what are the political outs, what is the exit ramp, I haven’t heard any politicians talk about this yet, but that occurred to me as something that might end up figuring into this.

And the other thing, just to the point as to how deeply divided, I think many listeners know this, but for the handful who don’t, the illustration of how deeply divided even very anti-abortion Republicans are, is [former Vice President] Mike Pence, his family was created through IVF, and he’s clearly, he’s come out this week. I mean, there’s no question that Mike Pence is anti-abortion, there’s not a lot of doubt about that, but he has come forth and endorsed IVF as a life-affirming rather, as a good thing.

Rovner: And I actually went and checked when this all broke because Joanne probably remembers in the mid-2000s when they were talking about stem cell research that President George W. Bush had a big event with what were called “snowflake children,” which were children who were born because they were adopted leftover embryos that someone else basically gestated, and that …

Kenen: But I don’t think they’ll call them “snowflake” anymore.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, that adoption agency is still around and still working and still accepting leftover embryos to be adopted out. That does still exist. I imagine that’s probably of use in Louisiana too, where you’re not allowed to destroy leftover embryos.

Well, meanwhile, we have some new numbers on something else we’ve been talking about since Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization]. Doctors who deliver babies in states with abortion bans are choosing to leave rather than to risk arrest or fines for providing what they consider evidence-based care. In Idaho, according to a new report, 22% of practicing obstetricians stopped practicing or left the state from August 2022 to November 2023. And, at the same time, two hospitals’ obstetric programs in the state closed, while two others report having trouble recruiting enough doctors to keep their doors open.

I would think this is going to particularly impact more sparsely populated states like Idaho, which also, coincidentally or not, are the states that tend to have the strictest abortion bans. I mean, it’s going to be … this seems to be another case where it’s going to be harder, where abortion bans are going to make it harder to have babies.

Cohrs: Yeah. I mean, we’re already seeing a trend of hospital systems being reluctant to keep OB-GYN delivery units open anyway. We’ve seen care deserts. It’s really not a profitable endeavor unless you have a NICU [neonatal intensive care unit] attached. So I think this just really compounds the problems that we’ve been hearing about staffing, about rural health in general, recruiting, and just makes it one step harder for those departments that are really important for women to get the care they need as they’re giving birth, and just making sure that they’re safe and well-staffed for those appointments leading up to and following the birth as well.

Kenen: Right. And at a time we’re supposedly making maternal mortality a national health priority, right? So you can’t really protect women at risk, and, as Rachel said, it’s during childbirth, but it’s for months after. And without proper care, we are not going to be able to either bring down the overall maternal mortality rates nor close the racial disparities.

Griffin: I was just going to say, I highly recommend a story the New Yorker did this past January, “Did an Abortion Ban Cost a Young Texas Woman Her Life?” It’s a view into many of these different themes and will show you a real human story, a tragic one at that, about what these deserts, how they have consequential impact on people’s lives for both mother and baby.

Rovner: Yeah, and we talked about that when it came out. So if you go back, if you scroll back, you’ll find a link to it in the show notes.

I was going to say March is when we get “Match Day,” which is when graduating medical students find out where they’re going to be completing their training. And we saw just sort of the beginnings last year of kind of a dip in graduating medical students who want to become OB-GYNs who are applying to programs in states with abortion bans. I’ll be really curious this year to see whether that was a statistical anomaly or whether really people who want to train to be OB-GYNs don’t want to train in states where they’re really worried about changing laws.

We have to move on. I want to talk about something I’m calling the most under-covered health story of the month, a huge cyberattack on a company called Change Healthcare, which is owned by health industry giant UnitedHealth [Group]. Change processes insurance claims and pharmacy requests for more than 300,000 physicians and 60,000 pharmacies. And as of Wednesday, its systems were still down a week after the attack.

Rachel, I feel like this is a giant flashing red light of what’s at risk with gigantic consolidation in the health care industry. Am I wrong?

Cohrs: You’re right, which is why a couple of my colleagues did cover it as just this important red flag. And there are new SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] reporting rules as well that require more disclosure around these kind of events. So I think that will …

Rovner: Around the cyberattacks?

Cohrs: Yes, around the cyberattacks, yes. But I think just the idea that, we’ll talk about this later too, but that Change is owned by UnitedHealth and just so much is consolidated that it really does create risks when there are vulnerabilities in these very essential processes. And I think a lot of people just don’t understand how many health care companies, they don’t provide any actual care. They’re just helping with the backroom kind of operations. And when you get these huge conglomerates or services that are bundled together under one umbrella, then it really does show you how a very small company maybe not everyone had heard of before this week could take down operations when you go to your pharmacy, when you go to your doctor’s office.

Rovner: Yeah, and there are doctors who aren’t getting paid. I mean, there’s bills that aren’t getting processed. Everything was done through the mail and it was slow and everybody said, “When we digitize it, it’s all going to be better and it’s all going to happen instantly.” And mostly what it’s done is it’s created all these other companies who are now making money off the health care system, and it’s why health care is a fifth of the U.S. economy.

But anticipating what you were about to say, Rachel, speaking of the giant consolidation in the health industry by UnitedHealth, I am not the only one, we are not the only ones who have noticed. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that the Justice Department has begun an antitrust investigation of said UnitedHealthcare, which provides not only health insurance and claims processing services like those from Change Healthcare, but also through its subsidiary Optum, owns a network of physician groups, one of the largest pharmacy benefit managers, and provides a variety of other health services. Apparently one question investigators are pursuing is whether United favors Optum-owned groups to the detriment of competing doctors and providers.

I think my question here is what took so long? I know that the Justice Department looked at it when United was buying Change Healthcare, but then they said that was OK.

Cohrs: Yeah. I will say I think this is a great piece of reporting here, and these are excellent questions about what happens when the vertical integration gets to this level, which we just really haven’t seen with UnitedHealthcare, where they’re aggressively acquiring provider clinics. I think it was a home health care company that they were trying to buy as well.

So I think it is interesting because now that the acquisitions have happened on some of these, there will be evidence and more material for investigators to look at. It won’t be a theoretical anymore. So I will be interested to see just how this plays out, but it does seem like the questions they’re asking are pretty wide-ranging, certainly related to providers, but also related to an MLR [medical loss ratio]. What if you own a provider that’s charging your insurance company? How does that even work and what are the competitive effects of that for other practices? So I think …

Rovner: And MLRs, for those who are not jargonists, it’s minimum loss ratios [also known as medical loss ratio], and it’s the Affordable Care Act requirement that insurers spend a certain amount of each dollar on actual care rather than overhead and profit and whatnot. So yeah, when you’re both the provider and the insurer, it’s kind of hard to figure out how that’s going.

I am sort of amazed that it’s taken this long because United has been sort of expanding geometrically for the last decade or so.

Kenen: It’s sort of like the term vertical integration, which is the correct term that Rachel used, but as she said that, I sort of had this image of a really tall, skinny, vertical octopus. There’s more and more and more things getting lumped into these big, consolidating, enormous companies that have so much control over so much of health care and concentrated in so few hands now. It’s not just United. I mean, they’re big, but the other big insurers are big too.

Cohrs: Right. I did want to also mention just that we’re kind of seeing this play out in other places too, like Eli Lilly creating telehealth clinics to prescribe their obesity medications. Again, there’s no evidence that they’re connected to this in any way, but I think it is going to be a cautionary tale for other health care companies who are looking into this model and asking themselves, “If UnitedHealthcare can do it, why can’t we do it?” It will be interesting to see how this plays out for the rest of the industry as well.

Rovner: Yeah, when I started covering health policy, I never thought I was going to become a business reporter, but here we are.

Moving on to “This Week in Health Misinformation,” we have Joanne, or rather an interesting, and as it turns out, extremely timely story about vaccines that Joanne wrote for Politico Magazine. Joanne, tell us your thesis here with this story.

Kenen: I wanted to look at how much the public health and clinician community had learned about combating misinformation, sort of a real-life, real-time unfolding before our eyes, which was the rollout of the RSV vaccine.

And I think the two big takeaways, I mean, it’s a fairly … I guess there were sort of three takeaways from that article. One, is they’ve learned stuff but not enough.

Two, is that it’s not that there was this huge campaign against the RSV vaccine, there is misinformation about the RSV vaccine, but basically it just got subsumed into this nonstop, ever-growing anti-vaccine movement that you didn’t have to target RSV. Vaccines is a dirty word for a section of the population.

And the third thing I learned is that the learning about fighting disinformation, the tools we have, you can learn about those tools and deploy those tools, but they don’t work great. There’ve been some studies that have found that what they call debunking or fact-checking, teaching people that what they believe is untrue, that they say, “Ah, that’s not right,” and then a week later they’re back to their original, as little as one week in some studies. One week, you’re back to what you originally thought. So we just don’t know how to do this yet. There are more and more tools, but we are not there.

Rovner: Well, and I say this story is timely because we’re looking at a pretty scary measles outbreak in Florida and a Florida surgeon general who has rejected all established public health advice by telling parents it’s up to them whether to send their exposed-but-unvaccinated children to school rather than keep them home for the full 21 days that measles can take to incubate.

The surgeon general has been publicly taken to task by, among others, Florida’s former surgeon general. I can remember several measles outbreaks over the years, often in less-than-fully-vaccinated communities, but I can’t remember any public health officials so obviously flouting standard public health advice.

Joanne, have you ever seen anything like this?

Kenen: No. It’s like his public stance is like, “Measles, schmeasles.” It’s like a parent has the right to decide whether they’re potentially contagious, goes to school and infects other children, some of whom may be vulnerable and have health problems. It is this complete elevation of medical liberty or medical freedom completely disconnected to the fact that we are connected to one another. We live in communities. We supposedly care about one another. We don’t do a very good job of that, and this is sort of the apotheosis of that.

Rovner: And one of the main reasons that public schools require vaccines is not just for the kids themselves, but for kids who may have younger siblings at home who are not yet fully vaccinated. That’s the whole idea behind herd immunity, is that if enough people are vaccinated then those who are still not fully vaccinated will be protected because it won’t be floating around. And obviously in Florida, measles, which is, according to many doctors, one of the most contagious diseases on the planet, is making a bit of a comeback. So it is sort of, as you point out, kind of the end result of this demonization of all vaccines.

Kenen: And our overall vaccination rate for childhood immunization has dropped and it’s dropped, I’d have to fact-check myself, I think what you need for herd immunity is 95% and it’s …

Rovner: I think it’s over 95.

Kenen: And that we’re down to maybe 93[%]. I mean, this number was in that article that I wrote, but I wrote it a few weeks ago and I may be off by a percentage point, so I want to sort of clarify that nobody should quote me without double-checking that. But basically, we’re not where we need to be and we’re not where we were just a few years ago.

Rovner: Another space we will continue to watch.

Well, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with law professor Greer Donley, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am thrilled to welcome to the podcast, Greer Donley, associate dean for research and faculty development and associate professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh Law School. She’s an expert in legal issues surrounding reproductive health in general and abortion in particular, and someone whose work I have regularly relied on over the past several years, so thank you so much for joining us.

Greer Donley: I’m so happy to be here. Thanks for having me.

Rovner: So I’ve asked you here to talk about how an anti-abortion president could use an 1873 law called the Comstock Act to basically ban abortion nationwide. But first, because it is still so in the news, I have to ask you about the controversy surrounding the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling that frozen embryos for in vitro fertilization are legally children. Do you think this is a one-off, or is this the beginning of states really, fully embracing the idea of personhood from the moment of fertilization?

Donley: Man, I have a lot to say about that. So I’ll start by saying that first of all, this is the logical extension of what people have been saying for a long time about, “If life starts at conception, this is what that means.” So in some sense, this is one of those things where people say, “Believe people when they tell you something.” Folks have been saying forever, “Life starts at conception.” This is a logical outgrowth of that. So in some sense, it’s not particularly surprising.

It’s also worth noting that states have been moving towards personhood for decades, often through these kind of state laws, like wrongful death, which is exactly what happened here. So this is the first case that found that an embryo outside of a uterus was a children for this purpose of wrongful death, but many states had been moving in the direction of finding a fetus or even an embryo that’s within a pregnant person to be a child for the purpose of wrongful death for a while now. And that has always been viewed as the anti-abortion movement towards personhood. In some sense, this is just kind of the logical outgrowth, the logical extension, of the personhood movement and the permission that Dobbs essentially gave to states to go as far as they wanted to on this question.

So whether or not this is going to be the beginning of a new trend is, I think, in my mind, going to be really shaped by public backlash to the Alabama decision, particularly. I think that many folks within the anti-abortion movement, again, they mean what they say. They do believe that this is a life and it should be treated as any other life, but whether or not they are going to perceive this as the ideal political climate in which to push that agenda is another question.

And my personal view is that, given the backlash to the Alabama Supreme Court, you might see folks retreating a little bit from this. I think we’re starting to see a little bit of that, where more moderate people within the Republican Party are going to say, “This is not the moment to go this far,” or maybe even, “I’m not sure I actually support this logical outgrowth of my own opinion,” and so we’re going to have to kind of …

Rovner: “I co-sponsored this bill, but I didn’t realize that’s what it would do.”

Donley: Exactly. Right? So we’re going to, I think, really have to see how people’s views change in response to the backlash.

Rovner: Let us go back to Comstock. Who was this person, Anthony Comstock? What does this law do and why is it still on the books 151 years after it was passed?

Donley: Ugh, yes, OK. So Anthony Comstock, he is what people often call, “The anti-vice crusader.” This law passed in 1873. It’s actually a series of laws, but we often compile them and call them the Comstock Act.

The late 1800s were a moment of change, where many people in this country were for the first time being exposed to the idea that abortion is immoral for religious reasons. Before that for a long time, in the early 1800s, people regularly purchased products to try to what they call, “Bring on the menses,” or menstrual regulation. So it was not uncommon. It was a fairly commonly held view up until late 1800s that the pregnancy was nothing until it was a quickening, there was a quickening where the pregnant person felt movement.

So Comstock was one of the people who was really kind of a part of changing that culture in the late 1800s, and he had the power as the post office inspector of investigating the mail throughout our country. So he was influential not only in helping to pass a law that made it illegal to ship through interstate commerce all sorts of things that he considered immoral, which explicitly included abortion and contraception, but also used vague terms like “anything immoral.” And he was the person that was then in charge of enforcing those laws by actually investigating the mail. His investigations led to pretty horrible outcomes, including many people killing themselves after he started investigating them for a variety of Comstock-related crimes at the time.

So obviously, this law was passed before women had the right to vote, in a completely different time period than we exist today, and it really remained on the books by an accident of history, in my mind.

So in the early 1900s, there was a series of cases. This was the moment where we particularly saw a huge movement towards birth control. So as that movement was going on, you saw a lot of litigation in the courts that were interpreting the Comstock laws related to contraception, finding that it had to be narrowly limited to only unlawful contraception or unlawful abortion. Because the Comstock laws, by its terms, which this should shock everybody who’s hearing me, has literally no exceptions, not even for the life of the pregnant person. And it is so broad that it would ban abortion nationwide from the beginning of a pregnancy without exception. Procedural abortion, pills, everything.

Rovner: And people think of this as the U.S. mail, but it’s not just the U.S. mail. It’s basically any way you move things across state lines, right?

Donley: Right. Because we live in a national economy now, so there’s nothing in medicine that exists in a purely intrastate environment. So every abortion provider in the country is dependent on them and their state mail to get things that they need for procedural abortion and pills.

In the early to mid-1900s, right around the 1930s, there was a series of cases that said this law only applied for unlawful contraception and abortion because they had to read that term into the law. Eventually in the late 1930s, you saw the federal government stop enforcing it completely. And then you had the constitutional cases came out that found a right to contraception and abortion, and so the law was presumed unconstitutional for half a century. No one was repealing it because everyone assumed that it was never going to come back to life. In comes Dobbs, in come the modern anti-abortion movement, and now we are here.

Rovner: Yeah. So how could a President Trump, if he returns to the White House, use this to ban abortion nationwide?

Donley: Yes, because this law was never repealed, and because the case that presumptively made it unconstitutional, Roe v. Wade, and the cases that came after that, are now no longer good law, presumptively the law, like a zombie, comes back to life.

And so the anti-abortion movement is now trying to reinterpret the law, right? We’re talking about such a long period of time and all those 1930s cases, since that time period, you have the rise of what we call textualism, which is a theory of statutory interpretation that really likes to stick to the text. That was something that’s been around for a while, but in modern jurisprudence, that has become increasingly important, and the anti-abortion movement sees, “Well, all these judges are now textualists, and we can say this law is still good. By its clear terms, it bans shipping through interstate commerce anything that could be used for an abortion. Voila. We have our national abortion ban without having to get a single vote in Congress. All we need is a Republican president that will enforce the law as it’s written and on the books today,” and that is their theory.

Rovner: And that’s included, I think, in one of the briefs that was filed today in the abortion pill case, right?

Donley: Absolutely. In that case, that’s a case concerning the regulation of mifepristone, one of the abortion pills, that’s before the Supreme Court this summer. You had parties saying, “The law is clear and it is as broad as it’s written,” essentially.

Rovner: Well, this doesn’t apply to contraception anymore, right?

Donley: Right. So right after the Supreme Court case Griswold [v. Connecticut], which found a constitutional right to contraception, but before Roe, you had the Congress actually repealed the portion of Comstock related to contraception. But again, it was before Roe, so they didn’t repeal the part related to abortion, and then Roe came in and made that part presumptively unconstitutional.

Of course, going back in time, we would say, “You got to repeal that law. You have no idea what the future may be,” but I don’t think people really saw this moment coming. They should have. We should have all been preparing for this more. But, yeah.

Rovner: One of the things that I don’t think I had appreciated until I read the op-ed that you co-wrote, thank you very much, is that there could be a reach-back here. It’s not even just abortions going forward, right?

Donley: Right. So the idea here is that, generally, laws have a statute of limitations, right? So you could potentially have a President Trump come in, say that he’s going to start enforcing this law immediately, and even if the second Jan. 1 comes, people stop shipping anything through interstate commerce, he could still go back and say, “Well, the statute of limitations is five years.” So you go back in time for five years and potentially bring charges against someone.

So one of the important pieces of advocacy that we might have in this moment is to really encourage President Biden, if he were to not win the election, to preemptively essentially pardon anybody for any Comstock-related crimes to make sure that that can’t be used against them. That’s a power he actually has and will be a very important power for him to use in that instance. But it’s quite alarming how Comstock could be used in this period, but also retrospectively.

Rovner: Last question, and I know the answer to this, but I think I need to remind listeners, if Congress doesn’t have to pass anything to implement a nationwide ban, why haven’t previous anti-abortion Republican presidents tried to do this?

Donley: While Roe and [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v.] Casey were good law, there was no way that they could possibly do that. It would’ve been unconstitutional for them to try to criminalize people for exercising their constitutional right to reproductive health care for abortion. So we’re really in a new moment where essentially the Supreme Court overturned those cases while President Biden was in office, and so the real question is whether a Republican administration could come in and change everything.

Rovner: We shall see. Greer Donley, thank you so much for coming to explain this.

Donley: Thank you for having me.

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, you were the first to choose this week. Why don’t you go first?

Cohrs: The article I chose is in The New York Times. The headline is “$1 Billion Donation Will Provide Free Tuition at a Bronx Medical School” by Joseph Goldstein. And it’s about how this 93-year-old widow of an early investor in Berkshire Hathaway has given $1 billion to a medical school in the Bronx to pay for students’ tuition. And I think her idea behind it is that it will open up the pool of students who might be able to go to medical school. I imagine applications might increase to this school as well. And she was a professor at the school during her career as well.

To me, it’s not a scalable solution necessarily for the cost of medical education, but I think it does highlight how broke everything is. When we’re talking about Medicare payment to doctors, I think one of the arguments they always use is doctors have debt and there’s inflation and costs have gone up so much, and I think the cost of education in this country certainly is one factor in that, that it’s really hard to address from a simply health care policy standpoint.

So I think not necessarily a scalable solution, but will definitely make a difference in a lot of students’ lives and just give them more freedom to practice in the specialty that they might want to, which we all know we need more primary care doctors and doctors in a variety of different settings. So I think it’s a rare piece of good news.

Rovner: Yeah, it might not be scalable, but it’s not the first, which is kind of … I remember, in fact, NYU is now having a no-tuition medical school. UCLA, although I think UCLA is only for students who can demonstrate financial need. But in doing those earlier stories, and I have not updated this, at the time, which is a couple of years ago, the average medical student debt graduating is over $250,000. So you can see why they feel like they need to be in more lucrative specialties because they’re going to be paying their student loans back until they’re in their 40s, most of them. This is clearly a step in that direction.

Riley, why don’t you go next?

Griffin: Yeah. I wanted to share a story that I’ve been fairly obsessed with over the last month. It’s one of my own. It’s “US Seeks to Limit China’s Access to Americans’ Personal Data.” This week, the Biden administration announced that it is issuing, or has at this point issued, an executive order to secure Americans’ sensitive personal data, and we broke this story about a month ago.

Why it is so interesting to the health world is, one of the key parts that was a motivating factor in putting together this executive order, is DNA, genomic data. The U.S., the National Security Council, our national security apparatus is really concerned about what China and other foreign adversaries are doing with our genetic information. And we can get more into that in the story itself, but it is fascinating, and now we’re seeing real action to regulate and protect and ensure that that bulk data doesn’t get into the hands of people who want to use it for blackmail and espionage.

Rovner: Yeah, it was super scary, I will say. Joanne?

Kenen: I couldn’t resist this one. It’s in Axios. It’s by Tina Reed, and the headline is “An Unexpected Finding Suggests Full Moons May Actually Be Tough on Hospitals.” Caveat, before I go on, there is research out there that proves what I’m about to say is wrong.

But anyway, a company that makes panic buttons, so a hospital security company that one of the things they do is provide panic buttons, they did a study of how and when these panic buttons are used, and they found they go up during full moons. And they also found that other things rise during full moons. GI [gastro-intestinal] disorders go up, ambulance rides connected to motor vehicle accidents go up, and psychiatric admissions go up. So maybe that research that I cited at the beginning saying this is hogwash needs to be reevaluated in some subcategories.

Rovner: There’s always new things to find out in science.

My extra credit this week is from ProPublica. It’s called “Their States Banned Abortion. Doctors Now Say They Can’t Give Women Potential Lifesaving Care,” by Kavitha Surana. It’s another in a series of stories we’ve seen about women with serious pregnancy complications that are not immediately life-threatening, but who nevertheless can’t get care that their doctors think they need.

This story, however, is written from the point of view of the doctors, specifically members of an abortion committee at Vanderbilt Hospital in Nashville who are dealing with the Tennessee ban that’s one of the strictest in the nation. It’s really putting doctors in an almost impossible position in some cases, feeling that they can’t even tell patients what the risks are of continuing their pregnancies for fear of violating that Tennessee law. It’s a whole new window into this story that we keep hearing about and a really good read.

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 very patient 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 hanging around at Twitter, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and @julie.rovner at Threads.

Joanne, where are you hanging these days?

Kenen: Mostly at Threads, @joannekenen1. I still occasionally use X, and that’s @JoanneKenen.

Rovner: Riley, where can we find you on social media?

Griffin: You can find me at X @rileyraygriffin.

Rovner: And Rachel?

Cohrs: I’m at X @rachelcohrs and on LinkedIn more these days, so feel free to follow me there.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Letters to the Editor is a periodic feature. We welcome all comments and will publish a selection. We edit for length and clarity and require full names.

Occupational Therapists Change Lives. CMS Must Better Support Them.

Occupational therapists are critical in helping patients adjust to new circumstances, empowering them with the tools they need to overcome barriers and regain control over their lives. Whether you’re transitioning from homelessness into a home (“In Los Angeles, Occupational Therapists Tapped to Help Homeless Stay Housed,” Jan. 24) or relearning how to do everyday tasks following a stroke, OTs are key to patients’ care plan.

But the critical care provided by OTs is being threatened by another year of payment cuts imposed by Medicare, our nation’s health care program for people age 65 and up. Many older patients treated by OTs access insurance coverage through Medicare, which typically reimburses providers at a lower rate than private insurers. And now, with payment cuts that went into effect on Jan. 1 — despite warnings and backlash from lawmakers, patients, and providers — OTs are struggling to deliver care with lower Medicare payment.

Investing in occupational therapy improves health outcomes for patients, has the potential to reduce the burden on hospitals and other health care clinicians, and keeps individuals healthy and independent. Medicare’s payment cuts only compromise the ability of providers to deliver comprehensive, compassionate care. Medicare must recognize the long-term patient benefits occupational therapy has to offer.

Luckily, Congress is considering a bill that would reverse these harmful payment cuts. The Preserving Seniors’ Access to Physicians Act of 2023 (HR 6683), would reverse the cuts that went into effect on Jan. 1, alleviating financial stress for occupational therapists and preserving patient access. I strongly urge lawmakers to prioritize and protect occupational therapy services and immediately pass HR 6683 for America’s Medicare patients.

— Doug Fosco, an occupational therapist practicing at Two Trees Physical Therapy in Ventura, California

An assistant professor at Ontario’s Western University weighed in on X.

Great to see the role of #occupationaltherapy with persons who experience #homelessness profiled in @latimes. Thanks #deborahpitts for your work in LA with @USC and #skidrowhousingtrust . Check it out @CAOT_ACE @OSOTvoice ! @CAEHomelessness https://t.co/S5s9jhgoxI

— Carrie Anne Marshall, PhD (@cannemarshall) January 24, 2024

— Carrie Anne Marshall, Sydenham, Ontario

Congress Must Finish the Job on Site-Neutral Payments

There’s an obvious solution to rein in government spending and patient out-of-pocket costs: Pay identical prices for identical care (“In Fight Over Medicare Payments, the Hospital Lobby Shows Its Strength,” Feb. 13).

As a community oncologist, it is clear to me how Medicare favors hospitals by paying more for services provided in hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) than the same care delivered in community-based facilities. For example, last year, Medicare paid over 2.5 times as much in an HOPD as in a free-standing office for drug administration services. It’s not just Medicare paying too much; patients also face higher out-of-pocket costs for care provided in HOPDs. If the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act is signed into law, cancer patients would immediately pay less for treatments like chemotherapy.

One unintended consequence of current payment disparities is consolidation. To leverage higher reimbursements, health systems scoop up independent practices — a growing problem that is particularly pronounced in oncology. From 2008 to 2020, 435 community cancer clinics closed, while 722 contracted with or were acquired by hospitals. This consolidation is reducing patient access, particularly in rural areas, where many independent clinics operate small satellite sites that tend to be the first to close when hospitals acquire a community-based practice.

It’s time for Congress to finish the job through bills like the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act and the SITE Act, which would help level the playing field once and for all.

— Scott Rushing, Vancouver, Washington

The chief marketing officer of SKYGEN cut to the chase on X.

In the battle to control healthcare costs, hospitals are deploying their political power to protect their bottom lines. https://t.co/97r502KrpM

— Donald H. Polite (@DonaldPolite) February 15, 2024

— Donald H. Polite, Milwaukee

The ‘Gold Card’ Shuffle

Prior authorization, by definition, creates delays in care and bureaucratic barriers for physicians — which is why it is so troubling that many insurers now require prior authorization for large categories of procedures with no evidence of overuse or inappropriate use. With health insurers increasingly implementing questionable prior authorization policies, state and federal lawmakers are racing to erect safeguards that ensure patients’ access to timely care (“States Target Health Insurers’ ‘Prior Authorization’ Red Tape,” Feb. 12).

Much of the legislation to address this growing problem centers around the use of “Gold Cards” that exempt providers whose previous requests for prior authorization have been approved for a certain period. In general, these laws are important for patients who can’t afford to wait for care — especially in the field of gastroenterology where severe abdominal pain or blood in the stool could indicate a serious condition like cancer.

However, some insurance companies are co-opting the “Gold Card” term to justify new prior authorization requirements instead of streamlining existing ones. Consider the case of UnitedHealthcare, which announced it would roll out a “Gold Card” prior authorization program this year for most colonoscopies and endoscopies. No other insurer has levied such a policy, nor does the research suggest there is an overutilization of these vital services. Despite nearly a year of good faith efforts to seek transparency and guidance from UHC, the company has failed to release any data or justification that these services are improperly utilized.

If anything, diagnostic and surveillance colonoscopies and endoscopies may be underutilized. New research from the American Cancer Society shows an alarming spike in the number of younger Americans being diagnosed with and dying from colorectal cancer. Since symptoms of colorectal cancer don’t often appear until the disease is at a more advanced stage, early detection is key. Any disruption to surveillance colonoscopies (which follow removal of a precancerous polyp and are part of the screening continuum) caused by UHC’s forthcoming prior authorization policy would be dangerous for the company’s 27 million commercial beneficiaries.

The American Gastroenterological Association strongly urges UHC to rescind its “Gold Card” prior authorization policy. Policymakers must monitor how insurers are co-opting concepts meant to protect patients, in particular UHC’s faux “Gold Card,” which threatens patient access to a procedure proven to save lives.

— Barbara Jung, president of the American Gastroenterological Association, Seattle

In an X post, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute pointed out the value in requiring prior authorization.

Case-by-case prior authorization is never fun, but surely preferable to most other methods of eliminating needless spending (ex post denials of reimbursement, higher cost-sharing, capped global budgets, etc…) https://t.co/nYijeiAUtP

— Chris Pope (@CPopeHC) February 12, 2024

— Chris Pope, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, New York City

Hospice in Prison: A Transformative View

I was so impressed with Markian Hawryluk’s exceptionally well-written article “Death and Redemption in an American Prison” (Feb. 21). I was privileged to serve as an inaugural member of the American Hospital Association’s Circle of Life Award committee, from 1999 to 2004. The awards were established to recognize the most outstanding hospice and palliative care programs in the U.S. The very first year, we received an application from the country’s largest maximum-security prison in Angola, Louisiana, the subject of Mr. Hawryluk’s wonderful article. The prison was one of the five finalists chosen for a site visit in 2000. I volunteered to be on team to visit and evaluate the prison’s hospice services.

Twenty-four years later, I still remember my conversation with one of the inmate volunteers who had just returned from bathing and feeding a dying prisoner. He told me the inmate said, “I love you.” Then the inmate volunteer stated, “I never heard those words before — not from my father, who I never met, nor from my mother.” In 2000, if one were sentenced to life at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, there was no chance for parole. When we met with the warden, he mentioned there was a waiting list of prisoners who wanted to be hospice volunteers.

Please convey my deep appreciation to Mr. Hawryluk for his outstanding article.

— Paul Hofmann, president of the Hofmann Healthcare Group, Moraga, California

A digital storyteller shared the article on X.

Your one, long read for today – it's beautifully and thoughtfully written and reported"Sometimes when you're in a dark place, you find out who you really are and what you wish you could be," Steven Garner said. "Even in darkness, I could be a light."https://t.co/57asjh11ZV

— Ameera B. ا ميرة بت 🪬 (@meerabee) February 19, 2024

— Ameera Butt, Los Angeles

Feeling Insecure Because of Social Security Tactics

When will you continue your series on the overpayments to the Social Security Administration (“Overpayment Outrage”)? People are still suffering without benefits because the agency says people were overpaid and wants the money back. Why is nobody else asking more questions?

People in this country worked hard and paid taxes. And when it is time to retire, the Social Security Administration refuses to pay if, all of a sudden, it discovers you have been overpaid. They have told me I owe them $30,000 from over 20 years ago, and I do not know what they are talking about, but they want to take my retirement money until it’s paid off. Or they want you to say it is OK to take a percentage out. Doing that would say you’re guilty and you owe the money — to me, that’s blackmail.

New immigrants get free phones, medical care, debit cards, food assistance, schooling … that comes to more than my little amount of retirement money. It seems the government can afford to take care of them, but not their own. Everyone who has had their Social Security taken away should be entitled to the free services they get, as we are in the same position — now we have nothing either.

— Thomas Troy, New York City

Lifelong Minnesotan and epidemiologist Eric Weinhandl chimed in on X.

Relatively severe incompetency. Social Security Chief Apologizes to Congress for Misleading Testimony on Overpaymentshttps://t.co/HYPcTU5tVW

— Eric Weinhandl (@eric_weinhandl) December 27, 2023

— Eric Weinhandl, Victoria, Minnesota

A Balanced View of the Law Curbing Surprise Bills

KFF Health News’ Elisabeth Rosenthal has long advocated for quality, patient-centric medical care. However, her recent article, “The No Surprises Act Comes with Some Surprises” (Feb. 14), falls short in its analysis of surprise medical billing and the federal No Surprises Act (NSA). While she places blame on physicians, the reality is more complicated.

Patients with health insurance should not be burdened with paying more than their normal in-network cost-sharing amount for unexpected out-of-network care. This is not controversial. The legislative debate was never about whether to act on surprise billing, but rather how to act. While insurers favored policies that would allow them to calculate the payment rate medical providers receive, with the NSA, Congress instead chose an approach intended to protect sustainable payment rates that would preserve patients’ access to care. The NSA removes patients from payment disputes between insurers and providers and is intended to encourage negotiations between insurers and providers, with an option for neutral arbitration.

Rosenthal’s article implies a “greedy doctor” narrative, omitting discussion of insurers as contributing to the problems with the NSA’s implementation. While the article notes that many requests for arbitration came from private equity-associated provider organizations, it neglected to note that a single insurance company (UnitedHealthcare) was involved in almost 40% of arbitration disputes. That is more than the rest of the top five insurance organizations combined. The article also quotes and references papers by Zack Cooper, whose undisclosed connections with UnitedHealthcare came to light through litigation. As reported, UnitedHealthcare not only provided data to Cooper, but helped frame the narrative of the work.

NSA rulemaking has financially incentivized insurers to leverage the NSA to unilaterally reduce existing contracted rates and push physicians out-of-network. As for the projected number of requests for arbitration in 2022 (which underestimated “providers’ ire by an order of magnitude”), that projection ignored existing data. In just the first six months of 2021, Texas alone had more than twice as many arbitration submissions for its state law as the federal government projected for the nation for a full year. More importantly, the article ignores the issue of why doctors request arbitration. Since arbitration is baseball-style and “loser pays,” there is a strong disincentive to request it without a solid reason. In the second quarter of 2023, providers won nearly 80% of disputes, reflecting the fact that doctors are going to arbitration when insurers’ actions are unreasonable.

Further, while it is true that before the NSA too many patients were receiving bills for unexpected out-of-network care, a report from the Department of Health and Human Services noted that out-of-network billing was actually declining prior to the NSA. Physician survey data suggests that post-NSA out-of-network care is now increasing due to some insurers’ actions.

The bipartisan NSA is a balanced solution to a complicated problem. Difficulties with the law’s implementation, including the volume of dispute submissions and backlog of cases, are due to unintended consequences from rulemaking. Addressing these challenges requires an honest conversation about their cause. Going forward, rulemaking is needed to promote fair network contracting, limit the need for arbitration, and, most importantly, protect patients’ access to care.

— Rich Heller, a pediatric radiologist and the associate chief medical officer for health policy, Radiology Partners, Chicago

Anesthetist-emergency physician-family doctor David Moniz, in an X post, warned of the “unseen consequences” of the No Surprises Act.

Check out the surprising outcomes of the No Surprises Act, designed to protect patients from unexpected medical bills. While it's successfully shielded many patients, there are unseen consequences. Read the full article here: https://t.co/YFa0xweRe7#health, #healthpolicy, #he…

— David Moniz (@DavidMoniz15) February 14, 2024

— David Moniz, Chilliwack, British Columbia

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 federal judge in Texas has turned back the first challenge to the nascent Medicare prescription-drug negotiation program. But the case turned on a technicality, and drugmakers have many more lawsuits in the pipeline.

Meanwhile, Congress is approaching yet another funding deadline, and doctors hope the next funding bill will cancel the Medicare pay cut that took effect in January.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), chair of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, announced she would retire at the end of the congressional session, setting off a scramble to chair a panel with significant oversight of Medicare, Medicaid, and the U.S. Public Health Service. McMorris Rodgers is one of several Republicans with significant health expertise to announce their departures.
• As Congress’ next spending bill deadline approaches, lobbyists for hospitals are feverishly trying to prevent a Medicare provision on “site-neutral” payments from being attached.
• In abortion news, anti-abortion groups are joining the call for states to better outline when life and health exceptions to abortion bans can be legally permissible.
• Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is asking the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate a company that collected location data from patients at 600 Planned Parenthood sites and sold it to anti-abortion groups.
• And in “This Week in Health Misinformation”: Lawmakers in Wyoming and Montana float bills to let people avoid getting blood transfusions from donors who have been vaccinated against covid-19.

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

Julie Rovner: Stateline’s “Government Can Erase Your Medical Debt for Pennies on the Dollar — And Some Are,” by Anna Claire Vollers.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “‘There Was a Lot of Anxiety’: Florida’s Immigration Crackdown Is Causing Patients to Skip Care,” by Arek Sarkissian.

Rachel Cohrs: Stat’s “FTC Doubles Down in Welsh Carson Anesthesia Case to Limit Private Equity’s Physician Buyouts,” by Bob Herman. And Modern Healthcare’s “Private Equity Medicare Advantage Investment Slumps: Report,” by Nona Tepper.

Lauren Weber: The Wall Street Journal’s “Climate Change Has Hit Home Insurance. Is Health Insurance Next?” by Yusuf Khan.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• The Washington Post’s “U.S. Investigates Alleged Medicare Fraud Scheme Estimated at $2 Billion,” by Dan Diamond, Lauren Weber, and Dan Keating.
• Super Bowl ads from Pfizer, Power to the Patients, and the American Values 2024 super PAC.
• KFF Health News’ “Rapper Fat Joe Says No One Is Making Sure Hospitals Post Their Prices,” by Julie Appleby.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Biden Wins Early Court Test for Medicare Drug Negotiations

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Biden Wins Early Court Test for Medicare Drug NegotiationsEpisode Number: 334Published: Feb. 15, 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, Feb. 15, 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: Good morning.

Rovner: Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello.

Rovner: And Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi everyone.

Rovner: No interview this week, but we do have a special Valentine’s Day surprise. But first, the news. We’re going to start this week in federal district court, where the drug industry has lost its first legal challenge to the Biden administration’s Medicare drug price negotiation program, although on a technicality. Rachel, which case was this, and now what happens?

Cohrs: This was the capital “P” PhRMA trade association. And this case was a little bit of a stretch, anyways, because they were trying to find some way to get a judge in Texas to hear it. Because the broader strategy is for companies and trade groups to spread out across the country and try to get conflicting decisions from these lower courts.

Rovner: Which would force the Supreme Court to take it?

Cohrs: Exactly, yes. Or make it more likely. So PhRMA, in this case, they had recruited, there’s a national group that represents infusion centers and that was headquartered in Texas. The judge ultimately ended up ruling that this association didn’t follow the right procedure to qualify for judicial review and threw them off the case. And then they were like, well, if you throw them off the case, then there’s nobody in Texas, you can’t hear this here. So that was the ultimate decision there, but this could come back up. It was dismissed without prejudice. So this isn’t the end of the road for this lawsuit.

And it’s important to keep in mind that this wasn’t a ruling on any of the substance of the arguments. And trade groups generally are going to have less of an argument for standing, or it’s going to be a harder argument than the companies themselves that actually have drugs up for negotiation.

Rovner: And they’re suing too, the drug companies?

Cohrs: They are suing too. Yeah, just for everybody to keep on your calendars, there’s a judge in New Jersey who is hoping to have a quadruple oral argument on four of these cases, so stay tuned. That could be coming early next month. But these are very much moving. I think we are going to get insight on some of these arguments pretty soon, but this case is not quite that test case yet.

Rovner: All right, well, we’ll get to it eventually. Well, moving on to Capitol Hill. When we were taping last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders was holding his much-publicized hearing to grill drug company CEOs about their too-high prices. Rachel, you were there. Did anything significant happen?

Cohrs: I think it was kind of expected. I don’t think we were trying to find any innovative legislative solutions here. Honestly, it seemed, just from a candid take, that a lot of these lawmakers were not very well-prepared for questioning. There were a couple of notable exceptions, but we didn’t learn a whole lot new about why drug prices are high in the United States, how our system works differently from other countries.

I did find some useful nuggets in the CEO’s testimony about how low the net prices are for some of their medications, that they’re already offering a 70% discount, a 90% discount, which to me just kind of put into perspective some of the discounts we could be hearing in the Medicare negotiation program. That oh, even if it’s a 90% discount, that might not even be different from what they’re paying now. So just interesting to file a way for the future, but I think it was mostly a non-event for the CEOs who, for some reason, had to, under the threat of subpoena, come make these arguments. So it seemed like much ado about not a whole lot of substance.

Rovner: That was sort of my theory going in, but you always have to watch just in case. Well, also on Capitol Hill, the chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee announced she will retire at the end of the Congress. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who’s a Republican from Washington, was in her first term as chair of the committee that oversees parts of Medicare, all of Medicaid, as well as the entire U.S. Public Health Service.

I imagine this is going to set off a good bit of jockeying to take her place. And why would somebody step down early from such a powerful position? Do we have any idea?

Cohrs: Have you seen …? Oh, go ahead.

Ollstein: Facing Congress is what you say? Yes. This is part of a wave of retirements we’ve been seeing recently, including from some other committee chairs who could have theoretically continued to be powerful committee chairs for several years to come. People are taking this as part of the bad sign for Republicans. Either a sign that they don’t believe they’re going to hold the majority after this November’s election, or they’re just so fed up with the struggles they’ve had governing over the last few years and the inability to get anything done. And people are thinking, well, maybe I can get something done in a different role, not in Congress, because certainly, we’re not doing too much here to be proud of.

Rovner: Yeah, I feel like Cathy McMorris Rodgers is kind of this poster child for a very conservative Republican who’s not the far-right-wing MAGA type, who actually wants to do legislation. She just wants to do Republican legislation, and that seems to be getting harder in the House.

Ollstein: Right, right. And there’s a concern that, particularly on the right within Republicans, that we’re losing a health policy brain trust. We’re losing the people that have been really integral to a lot of the nitty-gritty policy work over the years, and they’re not being replaced with people who have that interest. They’re being replaced with people who are more focused on culture wars and other things. And so there’s concern in the future about the ability to cobble together things like Medicare reimbursement rates, or these technical things that aren’t really part of the culture wars.

Rovner: Yeah, I think we mentioned at some point that Mike Burgess is also retiring, also high up on the Energy and Commerce Committee. And he’s a doctor who’s really had his hands into some of this really nerdy stuff, like on Medicare physician reimbursement. And that will be obviously just a big loss of institutional memory there.

Cohrs: For the future of the committee, I know congressman Brett Guthrie has kind of thrown his hat in the ring to succeed her. Unclear who exactly is going to win this race, but he is the chairman of the health subcommittee, does bring some health expertise. So the E&C committee deals with a lot of different priorities, but if he were to succeed her, then I think we would see, at least at the top of the committee, some of the expertise remain.

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, in all of this jockeying, the next round of temporary government funding bills expires on March 1 and March 8, respectively, which is getting pretty close. And that brings back efforts to cancel the 3.4% pay cut that doctors got for Medicare patients in January. Where are we on funding, and are any of these health issues that people are out lobbying on going to make it into this next round? Is there going to be a next round?

Cohrs: Yeah, we don’t know if there’s going to be a next round, I don’t think. But at least the sources I’ve talked to have said that a full cancellation of the 3.4% cut for Medicare or payments to doctors is off the table at this point. They are hoping to do some sort of partial relief. They haven’t decided on percentages for that yet. And it’s unclear how much money will be available from pay-fors. It is still very much squishy, not finalized, two, three weeks out from the deadline, but I think …

Rovner: Two weeks.

Cohrs: There is some agreement on some relief, which has not been the case thus far for doctors. So I think that’s a positive sign.

Ollstein: Yeah. Overall, the chatter is about the need for yet another CR [continuing resolution] because the work is not getting done in time to meet these deadlines. That seems to be where we’re headed. Obviously, that will piss off a lot of members on the right who don’t want another CR, who didn’t want the last couple CRs. And so once again, we are staring down a possible shutdown.

Rovner: And I had forgotten, somebody reminded me, that even if they get another temporary funding bill, starting in April, there are automatic cuts if they’re not finished with this year’s funding bills. Which, I don’t know, is there any indication that they’re going to be finished with them by April either? I have not seen a lot of progress here. They’ve been fighting over other things, which is fine to fight over other things, but I’m not noticing a lot happening on the spending bills.

I’m seeing a lot of shaking heads. I guess nobody else is noticing either. Well, we will obviously keep watching that space because next week, we will only be one week away.

Well, another Medicare policy that supporters are hoping to get into one or another of these spending bills is creating something called more site-neutral payments in Medicare. Currently, Medicare pays hospitals and hospital outpatient departments, and sometimes even hospital-owned physician practices, more than it pays non-hospital affiliated providers for the exact same service.

The theory is that hospitals need higher payments because they have higher fixed costs, like keeping emergency rooms open 24/7. But it costs Medicare many billions of taxpayer dollars for this differential in payments. And this has become quite the lobbying frenzy for the hospital industry, yes?

Cohrs: Yes. I think it’s something that they can all get on board with hating, and I think they view it similarly to the drug pricing debate as a slippery slope. The policy Congress really is looking at now is a $3 billion, very small slice of all the services that could potentially be subjected to site-neutral payments. But the whole pie here is $150 billion potentially for Medicare.

We’re talking hundreds of billions of dollars for commercial payments. So I think they are really pushing to get to lawmakers, especially, from what I’ve talked to Senate Republicans, they are just not on board with it, they’re worried about the rural hospitals. And if they can connect to those things, which they have been successful in doing so far, they’re just not going to get very far.

I mean, if you look at the Senate Finance Committee, you have Mike Crapo from Idaho, Republican leadership. You have [John] Barrasso from Wyoming. There’s really just so many rural states that even Chuck Grassley, who is a moderate on a lot of health policy issues, talked about his rural hospitals in Iowa as soon as I asked him about this. So they’re not there yet right now, but I think hospitals are trying to keep it that way.

Rovner: And it was ever thus that the Senate is much more rural-focused than the House because pretty much every single senator has at least part of a rural area that they represent. Lauren, you wanted to add something?

Weber: Yeah, I just wanted to say, I always find it funny when rural hospitals come up as a cudgel by the big hospital associations, who don’t seem to look out for them the vast majority of the time when they’re closing. But as you pointed out, the Senate is much more rural-focused. So I do agree with all of you all, that I question whether or not this will have much ground to gain.

Rovner: Yeah. And the other thing that I keep wanting to point out is that there’s all this talk on Capitol Hill among Republicans of cutting the spending bills, the appropriations, and we’re going to balance the budget. Well, there’s just not enough money in the appropriation bills to do anything to the deficit. The money is in things like Medicare. I mean, that’s where, if you really want to make a dent in the deficit, you’re going to do it. And, as we’re seeing with this particular fight, every time they want to do something that’s going to save money, it’s going to hurt somebody. And I mean, there are obviously legitimate concerns about rural hospitals that are in trouble, particularly in states that haven’t expanded Medicaid, but that’s one of the reasons. It’s not so much the spending bills that make it hard to do anything about the deficit. It’s fights like these.

Meanwhile, for better or worse, another reason that Medicare costs so much is that it’s subject to a lot of fraud. Lauren, I have seen a lot of Medicare fraud stories over the years, but you’ve got one that was discovered in a pretty novel way. So tell us about it.

Weber: Yeah, my colleagues Dan Diamond, Dan Keating, and I found out early last week — we got a tip from the National Association of ACOs [Accountable Care Organizations] saying that they had seen this massive spike in catheter billing. When we did some digging into the companies they had identified — and to be clear, that spike of catheter billing was worth an alleged $2 billion in billings to Medicare. So when we talk about site-neutral payments, that’s almost what you would get for site-neutral payments: the $2 billion in Medicare fraud, but regardless.

So my colleagues and I dug in. So Dan, Dan, and I called around, and we found links between the seven companies that were charging Medicare for catheters that folks never received. I want to point out, I spoke to this lovely woman in Ponta Vedra Beach, Florida. She’s 74, Aileen Hatcher, who spotted this diligently going through her Medicare form, but as she said, she went to her — literally, these are her words — she’s like, “I went to my old lady luncheon and told them all this was on my Medicare statement.” And they said, “Oh, we don’t read those because we don’t pay Medicare the money. So we don’t read the explanation of benefits to see what we’ve been charged.”

And, unfortunately, I think that is what happens a lot of times with Medicare fraud. It goes unnoticed because folks aren’t the ones paying the dollars. But the bottom line is this was so large and so many people called into Medicare that Dan and I discovered that there is an ongoing federal investigation. Three of the companies, former owners that I called, confirmed to me that FBI had interviewed them or was talking to them about these folks that had taken over the companies and started charging Medicare this much money. And Dan also got some sources on that front as well.

So, I mean, it’s a pretty massive Medicare fraud scheme. I’ll give a call-out here. If anyone here has been affected by catheter and Medicare fraud, please give me an email. We’d love to hear more. I think it speaks to the fact that Medicare fraud — we all know this because we cover this — Medicare fraud is as old as time. It continues to happen, especially durable medical equipment Medicare fraud. But this is so much money. And it is wild that even though we talked to so many people that called Medicare over and over and over again, these folks were able to get away with billing for a very long time.

Rovner: What I found really fascinating about the story, though, is that it was the doctors in the ACOs that spotted it because — we’ve talked about these accountable care organizations — they’re accountable for how much it costs to take care of their patients.

The patients aren’t paying for it, as they point out, but these doctors, it’s coming right out of their bonuses and what they’re charged and how much they get for Medicare. So there’s finally somebody with a real incentive to spot this kind of fraud, because, basically, it was taking money from them. Right?

Weber: That’s exactly right. I think that’s why they were so hot to have some movement on this because, as they pointed out, they could lose millions of dollars in bonuses for better taking care of their patients.

It’s wild that it gets to this point. Like I said, we had all these people that called in to Medicare and many fraud lawyers we talked to said, “Look, why aren’t the NPIs [National Provider Identifiers] turned off?” Great question.

Rovner: Yeah. Anyway, I was fascinated by this story, and as I told Lauren earlier, I’m not a big fan of Medicare fraud stories just because there are so many of them. But this one is like, oh, maybe we finally have somebody … the ACOs can become bounty hunters for Medicare fraud, which would not be a bad thing.

All right, well, moving on to abortion this week, we have spent a lot of time talking about how doctors who perform abortions and patients who need them in emergencies have been trying to get state officials to spell out when the exceptions to state bans apply. Well, now it seems that it’s the other side looking for clarification.

Stat News reports that several anti-abortion groups have joined doctors and patients in urging the Texas Medical Board to spell out which conditions would qualify for the exception to the ban, and not subject doctors who guess wrong to potential prison terms and loss of their medical licenses.

Meanwhile, legislation moving through the House in South Dakota, endorsed by multiple anti-abortion groups, would require the state to make a video explaining how its ban works and under what circumstances. Alice, what’s going on here?

Ollstein: I think it’s this interesting confluence and it’s an interesting development because, at first, anti-abortion groups were insisting that the laws were perfectly clear. And that doctors were either willfully or mistakenly misinterpreting them. As more and more stories came forward of women being turned away while experiencing a medical emergency and suffering harm as a result, a lot of those women are part of lawsuits now.

They were saying the law is fine. In some cases, these anti-abortion groups wrote the laws themselves or advised on them saying, your interpretation is what’s wrong. The law is fine. But I think as so many of these stories are coming out, that’s not proving enough. And now they’re going back and saying, OK, well, maybe there do need to be some clarifications. They don’t want changes. There’s different camps because some people do want changes. Some people say, OK, we need more exceptions. We need more carve-outs to avoid these painful stories. Whereas other anti-abortion forces and elected officials say, no, we don’t need to change the law. We just need to clarify it and explain it. And so I think that’s going to be an ongoing tension.

Rovner: Yeah, I know one of the big themes earlier in this whole fight — I won’t say earlier this year, it was mostly last year — was redefining things as not abortions. That if you’re terminating an ectopic pregnancy, that’s not an abortion. Well, that is an abortion.

Ollstein: Medically, yes.

Rovner: So apparently, the … right. The renaming has not worked so far. So now I guess they’re trying to clarify things. Lauren, you wanted to add something?

Weber: Yeah, I just wanted to say, when you kick things to the medical board, I think people see that as an unbiased unpolitical organization. But medical boards are often appointed by the governor. So, in this case, Gov. [Greg] Abbott. And also take Ohio, for example: I believe that one of their medical board leaders is the head of the right-to-life movement.

I haven’t looked at Texas’. But kicking it to the medical board to make a decision — putting aside the fact that most medical boards are incredibly inadequate at their actual job, which is disciplining doctors, they’re not necessarily known for their competence — is that you also deal with some of the politics involved in this as well.

Rovner: So in South Dakota, it would kick this to the South Dakota Department of Health, which, of course, is controlled by the governor, who’s a Republican and pro-lifer. And so it’s hard to imagine what sort of doing a video explaining this is going to do to clarify things any further than they already think the law has gone. But at least … I’m fascinated by the effort here, that this is going on in multiple states. Speaking of state legislators, in Missouri, they’re working on a bill to create an abortion ban exception for children 12 and under — obviously thinking of the 10-year-old in Ohio in 2022 [who] had to go to Indiana to get a pregnancy terminated. But one Republican state senator complained that “a 1-year-old could get an abortion under this.” This is a serious question: Should legislators have to pass a basic biology test to make laws about reproductive health? As we know, 1-year-olds cannot get pregnant.

Ollstein: I mean, this was a more glaring example. We see this over and over in a lot more subtle ways, too, where doctors and medical societies are pointing out that these laws are drafted using language that is not medically accurate at all. And it can be small things in terms of when someone should qualify for a medical exemption to an abortion ban. Some states have language around if it would cause “irreversible damage.” That’s not a term doctors use in that circumstance, things like that. Or a major bodily function would be impaired if they don’t get an abortion. Well, what is a major bodily function? That’s not defined. And so, yes, this was an almost laughable example of this, but I think that it’s a sign of something more pervasive and maybe less obvious.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, I have listened to a lot of state debates with a lot of legislators saying things that are, as I say, kind of laughably inaccurate. Sorry, Lauren.

Weber: Oh, I would just say as a Missourian and as someone who lived in Missouri until a year ago, this gentleman, in particular, it does seem like has a history of making somewhat inflammatory statements that he knows will be picked up by the media. I mean, I think he brought a flamethrower to an event. I mean, I think that’s part of the shtick. But welcome to Missouri politics. You never know what you’re going to get.

Ollstein: And of course, we have the famous assertion that people can’t get pregnant as a result of rape because the body knows how to shut it down, which is obviously not …

Rovner: Which happened in a Missouri Senate race.

Ollstein: Yes. Yep. Exactly. So Missouri, once again, covering itself in glory.

Rovner: All right, well, something we haven’t talked about a lot recently are crisis pregnancy centers, which are usually storefronts for anti-abortion organizations that often lure women seeking abortions by offering free pregnancy tests and ultrasounds so that they can then talk them into carrying their pregnancies to term. The centers are getting more and more public support from states. One estimate is that government support totaled some $344 million in fiscal 2022. So that was a couple of years back. And increasingly as abortion clinics close in states with bans, crisis pregnancy centers, which typically don’t have medical professionals on staff and aren’t technically medical facilities, may be the only resource available to pregnant women. It seems that could have some pretty serious ramifications. Yes?

Ollstein: I mean, I think people don’t realize just how vast the network of these centers are. They outnumber abortion clinics by a lot in a lot of states, including states that support abortion rights. They’re very, very pervasive. And this is becoming a huge focus for the anti-abortion movement. It was basically the theme of this year’s March for Life, was these sort of resources. In part, it is an attempt to show a kinder face of the movement and change public opinion. Obviously, like we discussed, there are all these painful stories coming out about people being denied care. And so promoting these stories of places that provide some form of something, some services, it’s not necessarily medical care, but …

Rovner: They provide diapers and strollers and car seats. I mean, they do actually … many of them actually provide services for babies once they’re born.

Ollstein: Right. Right, right, right. And so I think there is going to be a huge focus on this in the policy space, both in terms of directing more taxpayer funding to these centers, which progressives vehemently oppose.

And so I think this is going to be a big focus going forward. It already has in Texas. Texas has directed a lot of money towards what they call alternatives to abortion, which include these centers. And so I think it’s going to be a big focus going forward.

Rovner: Well, one other thing about crisis pregnancy centers, because they are not medical facilities, they are not subject to HIPAA medical privacy rules. And it turns out that is important. According to an investigation by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, a company gathered and sold location data for people whose phones were in or around 600 separate Planned Parenthood locations, without the patients’ consent, to use an anti-abortion advertising.

Wyden is asking the SEC and the FTC to investigate the company, but this raises broader questions about information privacy, particularly in the reproductive health space. I remember right after Roe v. Wade was overturned, there were lots of warnings to women who were using period-tracking apps and other things about the concern about people who you may not want to know your private medical situation being able to find out your private medical situations. Is there any indication that there’s any way from the federal government point of view to crack down on this?

Ollstein: So I don’t know about that specifically, but there is a bigger effort on privacy and digital privacy and how it relates to abortion. We’re still waiting on the release of the final HIPAA rule from the Biden administration, which will extend more protections around abortion data, I think. But, because it’s HIPAA, it does only apply to certain entities and these centers are not among them. Another area I’ve been hearing concern about is research. A researcher at a university who is studying people who have abortions or don’t have abortions, their data is not protected. And so they are very stressed out about that, and that’s compromising medical research right now. So there’s a lot of these different areas of concern. And as we so often see, technology evolves a hell of a lot faster than government evolves to regulate it and address it. And that is just an ongoing concern.

Rovner: Yes, it is. And at some point, we’ll talk about artificial intelligence, but not today. Actually, right now, I want to turn to the Super Bowl. Yes, the Super Bowl. In between all the ads for blockbuster movies, beer, cars, and snack foods, and, right, a football game, there were three ads aimed directly at health policy issues.

In one, the nonprofit price transparency advocacy group Power to the Patients got musicians Jelly Roll, Lainey Wilson, and Valerie June to basically call hospitals and insurance companies greedy. It’s not clear to me if this was a free PSA or if this group paid for it, but I suspect the latter.

Does anybody know who this group is? They seem to have lots of access to big names for what seems to be a kind of obscure health issue. I mean, everybody’s for transparency, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Super Bowl ad about it.

Cohrs: This is not their first Super Bowl. It’s backed by Cynthia Fisher who is married to the CEO of Sam Adams, parent company. And he’s also a member of the Koch family. But she has been passionate about health care price transparency for years. I mean, was in President [Donald] Trump’s ear, has made the legal argument that the authority existed under the Affordable Care Act. Lobbied to get these regulations passed. And she has definitely employed unusual or unorthodox techniques, like Super Bowl ads, like painting murals, like hosting parties and concerts for health staff and health policy people in D.C. And I think she’s also lobbying for the codification of these transparency regulations.

And it is a little wonky, but I think her frustration is that she lobbied so hard to get these price transparency regulations and everyday people don’t even know that it should be available for them. And obviously academics disagree over how useful that information is for everyday people. But I think she has just taken it upon herself to do the PR campaign for these regulations that she believes could help people make more educated decisions about care that isn’t necessarily emergency care, like MRIs, that kind of thing. So she’s been around for years and has been very active.

I think Fat Joe is another celebrity that she’s brought onto the case. Jelly Roll — I hadn’t seen him do an event with her before or an ad. But I think there’s an ever-expanding cast of celebrities where this is just … it seems like a pretty noncontroversial issue. So I mean, Busta Rhymes, like French Montana, there’s been a lot of people involved in this campaign and I expect it to be ongoing.

Rovner: I feel like she’s kind of the Mark Cuban of price transparency, where Mark Cuban is all into drug prices. Alice, you want to add something?

Ollstein: Well, it’s just funny to me because, as we’ve discussed many, many times on this podcast, transparency goes not very far in helping actual patients. And so it’s funny that a group called Power to the Patients is going all in on this issue when, as we know, the vast majority of health care people need they cannot shop around for and, even when they can, it’s not something people are always able or willing to do.

And so transparency gets a lot of bipartisan support and sounds good in theory, but we’ve seen in terms of what’s been implemented so far in terms of hospital prices, et cetera, that it doesn’t do that much to bring down prices or empower people.

Rovner: Although, I don’t know, getting famous people to care about health policy can’t be a terrible thing. Lauren, did you want to add something too?

Weber: No, I just wanted to say, I mean, I will say as much as we’re all clear on price transparency, what this all means, the Super Bowl is a new audience. So, I mean, if you’re going to spend your money, at least you’re spending it — and that was the most watched TV program, I believe, of all time — so you’re spending it in a way that you’re getting some eyeballs on it.

Rovner: All right, well, that was not the only ad. Next, a company that clearly did pay for its ad was Pfizer, which used a soundtrack by Queen and talking paintings and statues to celebrate science and declare war on cancer. This is also one I don’t think I had seen before. I mean, what is Pfizer up to here? I mean, obviously, Pfizer can afford a Super Bowl ad. There’s no question about that, but why would they want to?

Cohrs: I mean, Pfizer has not been performing great financially lately. And I think they pulled out of the lobbying organization biome and chose to spend money on a Super Bowl ad, which I think is a really interesting choice. I mean, I don’t know what the dues are, but a Super Bowl ad is an expensive thing.

And I think there has been this attack on science, as a whole, and I think there’s an outstanding question of how to rebuild trust. And I think that this was Pfizer’s unorthodox tactic of trying to equate themselves with more credible, historical scientists who are less controversial. Yeah, my colleague did a good story on it.

Rovner: Yeah, like Einstein.

Cohrs: Right.

Rovner: Well, we’ll link to all of these ads. If you haven’t seen them there, they’re definitely worth watching. Well, finally, and in keeping with the occasional politics that does creep into Super Bowl ads, the super PAC supporting the presidential candidacy of independent anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. paid $7 million for an ad that was basically a remake of the 1960 ad for his uncle John F. Kennedy, when he was running for president, which provoked an outcry from several of his Kennedy cousins who have repeatedly disavowed RFK Jr.’s candidacy and his causes.

For his part, the candidate apologized to his family members and said he didn’t have anything to do with the ad directly, because it was the super PAC. But then he pinned it to his Twitter profile, where he has more than 2½ followers. I can’t help but wonder if they’re going after football fans who actually believe the whole Taylor Swift-Travis Kelsey thing is a conspiracy.

No comment on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and pissing off his entire family? We will move ahead then.

Speaking of conspiracy theories, in “This Week in Health Misinformation,” we have — drum roll — blood transfusions. Seems that there are a significant number of people who believe that getting blood from someone who has been vaccinated against covid, using the mRNA vaccines, will somehow change their DNA or otherwise harm them. And state legislators are listening.

In Wyoming, a state representative has introduced a bill that would require the labeling of blood from a covid-vaccinated donor. So prospective recipients could refuse it, at least in nonemergency situations. And in Montana, there’s a bill that would go even further, banning blood donations from the covid-vaccinated. That one appears to not be going anywhere, but this could have serious implications. It would create blood shortages, I imagine, even in rural areas where fewer people are vaccinated than in some of the urban areas. But I mean, this strikes me as not an insignificant kind of movement.

Ollstein: Well, it seems troubling on two fronts. One, we already have blood shortages and we already have dangerously low vaccination rates and not just covid vaccination rates. The hesitancy and anti-vax sentiment is spilling over into routine childhood vaccinations and all kinds of things.

And so I think anything that appears to give that sort of stigma and conspiracy a veneer of credibility, like state law for instance, threatens to further entrench those trends.

Rovner: All right, well, that is this week’s news. We will do our extra credits in a minute, but first, as promised, we have the winners of the KFF Health News “Health Policy Valentines” contest. This year’s winner, and we will post the link to the poem and its accompanying illustration, is from Jennifer Reck.

It goes, “Darling, this Valentine’s Day, let’s grab our passports and fly away to someplace where the same drugs cost a fraction of what they do in the States.” I have asked the panel to each choose a finalist of their own to read. So, Lauren, why don’t you start?

Weber: “The paperwork flirts with my affections, a dance of denials, full of rejections. My heart yearns for you, my sweet medication, but insurance insists on prior authorization.”

Rovner: And who’s that from?

Weber: That’s from Sally Nix. Excellent work, Sally.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: OK, I have one from Kara Gavin. It’s “My love for you, darling, is blinding / Like a clinical trial pre-findings / But I fear we shall part / And I’ll lose my heart/ Because of Medicaid unwinding!” Very topical.

Rovner: Very. Rachel.

Cohrs: OK, this is from Andrea Ferguson. “Parental love is beautiful and guess what makes it stronger? A paid parental leave policy to stay with baby longer.”

Rovner: Very nice. Thank you all who entered. And we’ll do this again next year. All right, 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. Alice, why don’t you go first this week?

Ollstein: I have a piece from my colleague Arek Sarkissian, down in Florida, and it is about how the state’s immigration law is deterring immigrants from seeking health care. And one of the areas they’re most concerned about is maternal health care. We already are in a maternal health crisis and the law requires hospitals that receive Medicaid funding to ask people about their immigration status when they come in for care. What a lot of people don’t know is that they don’t have to answer, but this fear of being asked and potentially being flagged for deportation enforcement, et cetera, is making people avoid care. And so there’s just a lot of concern about this and a lot of attempts to educate folks in the immigrant community. Obviously, Florida has a very large immigrant community. And it just reminded me of the fears that were happening early in the pandemic when the public charge rule under Trump was in effect and it was deterring immigrants from seeking care.

And in the middle of a pandemic, when we’re dealing with an infectious disease that doesn’t care if you have citizenship or not, having a large segment of the population avoid care is dangerous for everyone.

Rovner: Indeed. Lauren.

Weber: So I chose an article titled “Climate Change Has Hit Home Insurance. Is Health Insurance Next?” by Yusuf Khan in The Wall Street Journal. And, I mean, look, the insurers are — they’re looking out for their bottom line. And the bottom line is that climate change does have health impacts. So the question is, will that start to hit premiums? The sad answer, in part of this article, is that, unfortunately, the people often most affected by climate change don’t have health insurance. So that may not affect premiums as much as we expect, but I think this is a really fascinating test case of how when climate change comes for your money, you’ll start to see it validated more. So I’ll be curious to see how this plays out with the various health insurers.

Rovner: Yeah, obviously, we’re already seeing people not being able to get home insurance in places like Florida and California because of increasing fires and increasing hurricanes and increasing flooding in some places. Rachel?

Cohrs: So mine is a package deal. It’s two stories related to private equity investment in health care. The first is a piece in Modern Healthcare by Nona Tepper on a Medicare Advantage report by the Private Equity Stakeholder Project. And it just kind of highlighted the downturn in investment in Medicare Advantage, like marketing companies and brokers, consultants.

And I thought it was an interesting take because, I think so often, we see reporting about how private equity is expanding its investment in a certain sector. But this, I think, was an interesting indicator where, oh, it’s turning downward so dramatically. And I think that it’s interesting to track the tail end of more regulation or whatever rule comes out. How does that impact investment? And we talk a lot about that in the pharmaceutical space. But I thought this was a great interesting creative take on the Medicare Advantage side of things.

And also just highlighting some reporting from my colleague Bob Herman about the FTC doubling down on the Welsh Carson’s anesthesia case to limit private equity’s physician buyouts. So the FTC is taking on Welsh Carson, a powerful private equity firm, and other private equity firms asked for the case to be dismissed. And Bob does a great job breaking down these really complicated arguments by the FTC as to why they’re not backing down. They’re not going to cut a deal, they want this case to go forward.

So it will be interesting to watch as this develops, but I think Bob makes a great argument. There are applications for other cases as well and for the FTC and being able to attack these complex corporate arrangements where they’re using subsidiaries to drive prices up for physician services and other things. So definitely worth a read from Bob.

Rovner: Yes, another theme of the Federal Trade Commission getting more and more involved in health care in general and private equity in health care in particular. My extra credit this week is from Stateline by Anna Claire Vollers, and it’s called “Government Can Erase Your Medical Debt for Pennies on the Dollar — And Some Are.” It’s about how a growing number of states and cities are buying up and forgiving medical debt for their residents. Backers of the plans point out that medical debt is a societal problem that deserves a societal solution. And that relieving people’s debt burdens can actually add to economic growth. So it’s a good return on a small investment. It’s obviously not going to solve the medical debt problem, but it may well buy some government goodwill for some of the people of these states and cities.

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 to Stephanie Stapleton, filling in this week as our editor. 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, or @julierovner at Bluesky and @julie.rovner at Threads. Lauren, where are you these days?

Weber: Still just on Twitter @LaurenWeberHP, or X, I guess.

Rovner: Alice.

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

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs: I’m @rachelcohrs on X and also getting more engaged on LinkedIn lately. So feel free to follow me there.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

The Supreme Court this week took up a case brought by two herring fishing companies that could shake up the way the entire executive branch administers laws passed by Congress. At stake is something called “Chevron deference,” from the 1984 case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The ruling in that case directs federal judges to accept any “reasonable” interpretation by a federal agency of a law that’s otherwise ambiguous. Overturning Chevron would give the federal judiciary much more power and executive branch agencies much less.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration is struggling with whether to ban menthol-flavored cigarettes. Among smokers, African Americans consume the product at the highest rate, and the African American community is split, with some groups arguing that a ban would improve public health and others worried that making the product illegal would give police another excuse to harass black people.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine, Lauren Weber of The Washington Post, and Rachel Cohrs of Stat.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Congress looks ready to pass yet another temporary spending bill to keep the federal government running — this one extending to March. But it’s unclear whether all the health policies that have been attached to previous temporary “continuing resolutions” will continue to make the cut while lawmakers struggle with full-year funding issues.
• A grand jury in Ohio declined to indict Brittany Watts, who was charged by authorities with “abuse of a corpse” after having a miscarriage at home. The case underscores how women can be at legal risk for their pregnancy outcomes even in states where abortion remains legal.
• Also in Ohio, state pharmacy officials are moving to fine and place on probation a CVS store in Canton after inspectors determined that understaffing was threatening patient safety. In at least one case a patient was given a drug other than the one prescribed, and waits to fill some prescriptions stretched to a month. Ohio is also investigating other CVS locations in the state to ensure staffing is adequate.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Darius Tahir, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” about a lengthy fight over a bill for a quick telehealth visit. If you have an outrageous or baffling medical bill you want to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: Stat’s “Pumping Milk at JPM Was a Nightmare. It’s Part of a Bigger Problem in the Industry,” by Tara Bannow.

Joanne Kenen: Undark’s “Why Incentives to Attract Doctors to Rural Areas Haven’t Worked,” by Arjun V.K. Sharma.

Lauren Weber: The Guardian’s “Majority of Debtors to US Hospitals Now People With Health Insurance,” by Jessica Glenza.

Rachel Cohrs: The Washington Post’s “Republican Governors in 15 States Reject Summer Food Money For Kids,” by Annie Gowen.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• The Washington Post’s “White House Weighs Menthol Ban Amid Dueling Health, Political Pressures,” by Dan Diamond and Tyler Pager.
• The Ohio Capital Journal’s “Ohio Attorney General Asks That CVS Store Be Put on Probation ‘for a Period of Years,’” by Marty Schladen.
• The Atlantic’s “The Supreme Court Is Making America Ungovernable,” by Lisa Heinzerling.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Supreme Court vs. the Bureaucracy

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: The Supreme Court vs. the BureaucracyEpisode Number: 330Published: Jan. 18,2024

[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, Jan. 18, 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 video conference by Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello.

Rovner: Joanne Kenen of Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hey, everybody.

Rovner: And Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Good morning.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with my colleague Darius Tahir, who wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” about an unexpectedly large bill for a simple telehealth appointment. But first, this week’s news. So we’re a day away from the next deadline for Congress to pass a spending bill or else big chunks of the federal government shut down. In other words, the “let’s kick the can down the road a few more weeks and see how many spending bills we can get done” deadline is now here, again. So how many spending bills did Congress get done between — what, the end of November, the last time we did this — and now? Rachel, I see your eyes are rolling.

Cohrs: Yeah, I don’t think we have any actual appropriations in that time frame. I think there was just a lot of back-and-forth, not a lot of actual progress. So I think they’ve decided to kick the can down to March. As we’re taping in the morning, the Senate is scheduled to pass the CR [continuing resolution] to keep that two-pronged approach moving into early March, but extensions of health care programs in Medicaid and Medicare have been pushed now to the second March deadline, so those are expected to come up on March 8, right now.

Rovner: So remind us what those are. I saw you very helpfully have a story about it this morning.

Cohrs: I do, yes. Fresh from the trenches on that. So there were a number of health care programs that expired at the end of 2023, including payments for safety-net hospitals, including pandemic-era bonuses for doctors, for their Medicare pay. We also have funding for community health centers and multiple demonstration projects, programs for diabetes and other public health issues. So those are commonly known as extenders. They do just expire on a regular basis. We had a three-year term, but now we’re at the end of it.

Rovner: And they need to be extended. Hence, they’re called extenders.

Cohrs: They do need to be extended, yes. So Congress did take care of most of those items in the CR from September time frame, but they did not extend the bonus payments for doctors. So there were some very tense negotiations late last week where Republicans were really pushing to add those payments back into the extenders package as it sits right now, but those negotiations broke down and so what we’re seeing today, tomorrow, is just an extension of the same baseline and doctors are still without those increased payments.

Rovner: Right. That’s the Medicare cut that we talked about last week, actually, with the head of the AMA [American Medical Association].

Cohrs: Yeah, it’s controversial because it was … long story, but …

Rovner: There’s also a 3.7% actual cut and that’s still in effect, right? That’s not being taken care of?

Cohrs: No, that’s not being taken care of. I think if Congress doesn’t fix things, to my understanding, some specialties will see a cut, other specialties will see an increase, and there’s an across-the-board cut, though, because in the middle of the pandemic, Congress did not want to cut any doctors’ payments, so that was an increase on top of the kind of baseline amount. So when you’re saying cut, they’re kind of going back to the normal baseline for some physicians. Others are seeing that deeper cut because of some Trump-era rules and the conversion factors there.

Rovner: Yes. Medicare doctor payment, we’ll spend a whole episode on this at some point, but not today because we have something else confusing to take on. The award for incomprehensible health policy this week goes to the Supreme Court, who heard arguments Wednesday in two cases, Relentless Inc. v. the Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, i.e., Gina Raimondo, the secretary of Commerce. What is at stake here is not the merits of these cases — they are about fees paid by herring fishing boats — but whether the court should overrule something called Chevron deference, which is the policy that courts should defer to executive branch agency interpretations of ambiguous laws as long as that interpretation is reasonable. I know this sounds wonky, and it is wonky, but if the court overrules Chevron, it could have enormous ramifications for health policy, yes?

Kenen: Pretty much anything that has ever been regulated. That’s only a slight exaggeration. I mean, we don’t know what the court is going to do. We can expect that the court will trim, at least, Chevron, but we don’t know how far the court will go.

Rovner: Right. They didn’t have to take this case and the fact that they took it suggests they want to do something.

Kenen: They’ve been more than chipping away. We sort of get to that in a minute, but basically the question is when Congress doesn’t have the expertise that civil servants and agencies have, or in some cases, political appointees and agencies have. They are professionals who work in health care or the environment or herring fishing. They know more than even the smartest Congress person about their field of expertise, and traditionally Congress makes laws and tells the agencies to fill in the blanks, to do the regulations, to work out the details, figure out how this is going to work in the real world, and then everybody sues everybody else.

Chevron has basically said yes, the agencies can make up the rules. There are thousands of court cases and rules. It’s throughout the government, everything federal, so it’s not very hard to guess that Chevron will be changed. The question is: Will it be gutted? And who writes the regs? Or can Congress just put in language saying, “And we explicitly authorize the EPA or HHS or CMS, whatever, to fill in the blanks.” We don’t know how this plays out, but it’s messy.

Rovner: Obviously there are lawsuits that happen all the time anyway, even with Chevron, it’s just that Chevron is supposed to say when a judge gets a complaint in front of him saying “this regulation is contrary to what the law said,” the judge gets to decide whether or not it’s a reasonable interpretation. So it’s not like judges can’t overrule the agencies. It just says, in general, the weight should go towards the agency. Lauren, you wanted to add something?

Weber: Yeah, I just wanted to say I think this is relevant to the conversation we had just before this, because what this is aimed at doing is putting the power back in the hands, both of the courts and the Congress, but as we’ve just discussed, Congress is having a hard time passing things. So this is all part of the movement, in general, by conservatives to strip the administrative state, as they like to call it. And as Joanne pointed out, it’ll be quite interesting to see how this all plays out.

Rovner: Yes, and my favorite factoid about this case is that the lawyers who are representing the herring fishermen are being paid indirectly by Americans for Prosperity, the Koch Brothers, interest group that’s basically aimed at weakening the power of the regulatory state. It isn’t even very subtle here. Yes, Joanne?

Kenen: There’s been a lot of focus on Chevron, but there’ve been a number of cases that have already weakened Chevron without calling it weakening Chevron. I interviewed a lawyer, a law professor at Georgetown about a year ago, and she also wrote about a year ago a very good piece in The Atlantic that Julie couldn’t put on the notes. Her name is Lisa Heinzerling, I think it’s Heinzerling, and basically she said they’ve already really gutted Chevron. And the three cases, one was the EPA clean air case, power to regulate, and two were covid-related. One of them was the vaccine mandates for the workplace, and the court basically ruled that the agencies didn’t have the right to make those decisions.

What professor Heinzerling said, it’s called the major decision [questions] doctrine, that if it’s a really big thing, the agency can’t do it. Congress has to or the courts have to, and those big things include things like clean air. So, in her view, the major [questions] doctrine has already really gutted the agency’s power and made it harder to govern because, as she pointed out, it takes years to get a rule passed. She worked at the EPA, and it’s a very complicated, careful, long process and she basically said it’s another way of making the country ungovernable at a time when we have lots of things that need governing.

Rovner: To give myself a little plug here, I did basically a policy tracker at the beginning of the Biden administration tracking how long it was going to take [President Joe] Biden to undo a lot of the regulations and policies that the Trump administration put in, and I just updated it again last week when we talked about the conscience rule. It literally does take years for these things to happen. I mean, one presidential term is barely enough time to change the policies of the previous president, and I will link to my regulation tracker because somebody should look at it.

All right, well, moving on. I want to talk about an issue I’ve had on my podcast rundown since sometime last fall, but have never managed to get to, which is a proposed ban on menthol-flavored cigarettes. From a public health perspective, this is kind of a no-brainer. Menthol makes cigarettes smoke more palatable to smokers and, therefore, smokers smoke more, but it turns out to be super sensitive politically because African Americans are far more likely to smoke menthol cigarettes than any other group, and African American leaders themselves are split on whether such a ban would help or hurt. What are the arguments for and against this? Lauren, you’ve been kind of watching this, yes?

Weber: Yeah. Shoutout to my colleagues Dan Diamond and Tyler Pager who wrote a great story on this last week, but essentially the arguments for and against is menthol cigarettes are a leading cause of death for Black Americans. They’ve been historically marketed to the Black American community. What menthol does is it has a cooling effect when you smoke, so it makes it more enjoyable. As a smoking issue, you saw similar regulation issues come up when we talked about vaping regulation to different flavors, which also had similar backlashes when Donald Trump considered it, and actually when I was at KHN [KFF Health News], I got to write a story with Rachel Bluth about this where we talked about how Donald Trump really got gun-shy on this to some extent because he was worried about the voter implications. And we’re seeing that play out again right now because what is happening is that the tobacco lobby is telling Biden that he’s going to lose a large chunk of Black voters, which, as we are very clear, the 2024 election looks like it’s going to be quite tight, so that has real ramifications.

What’s interesting is that lobbying effort is obviously led by the tobacco companies, which have had a history of tactics and propaganda when it comes to preventing regulations that we’re all very well aware of, but they have rallied up quite a few folks in their favor, including some Black congressmen who have cited what the tobacco companies are telling them, which is that they’re concerned that this is targeting Black Americans, because why aren’t we just killing all cigarettes? Why are we just killing menthol cigarettes? That it also could lead to over-policing, which could lead to violence against Black Americans. This is the argument that the tobacco companies and their advocates are making. But the bottom line is really what this boils down to is I think the most effective argument that they’re making to the Biden administration is it could hurt your reelection chances.

To look ahead, the real deadline on this taking effect that all the advocates have been pointing to is Jan. 20, which, if you look at your calendar, is Saturday. So it’s not looking great for the promises to the advocates that this could happen in the Biden term. It’s unclear, still a toss-up. Dan Diamond reported that while the administration sees it as a toss-up, Robert Califf, who’s head of the FDA, is pretty resigned to it not happening, which to me seems to indicate, considering we are almost to the 20th, that it may not happen, but by the time this podcast airs, I could be wrong. So we will see how this plays out.

Cohrs: I just wanted to say that I think if you look at the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] regulatory schedule, they do have meetings on this rule scheduled out through mid-February, so could they cancel this tomorrow? Sure, and put it out, but at least what they’re saying publicly, it looks like they’re not planning to put that out tomorrow.

Rovner: Right, and I would say the deadline, it’s not technically a deadline, but what the agency has said is that it will take a year to basically, as we were just talking about, it takes a long time for regulations to become final, and Jan. 20 of 2025 is Inauguration Day. So if Biden were to not get reelected and they were to start this, it would be very easy for Trump or whoever else gets elected to stop it. Joanne, you wanted to add something.

Kenen: One point, though: This is an issue that’s been on the back burner, front burner, back burner, but it’s been 20, 30 years now, 20, 25-ish maybe? There has been a shift in that, I don’t remember whether it’s an official Black Caucus stance or just an informal … where the Black lawmakers in Congress had been opposed to the ban for the reasons, discriminatory, black market, it would hurt people as well as hurt some, help others. There’s now a split and that is a change. So whether there’s action this week, there is movement on it and, like we said, everything takes a long time, 25 years, but there has been movement on it, and it’s also a little bit more vivid who’s using tobacco dollars and who isn’t. So the public health needle has moved, maybe not in time for this year, but let’s see what happens next year. I mean, if it goes away now, it doesn’t go away for good.

Rovner: Lauren?

Weber: I think that’s a great point by Joanne that I just want to echo. This reminds me a lot … there was a story that The Post did in December where Peter Wallsten interviewed all of these lawmakers who voted against the AR-15 ban, and they talked all about how, if they could go back in time, they wished they had voted for it. They regret that political decision that they made due to the voter piece of this, and I do wonder if Biden is grappling with that similar longevity of, like, this would be a landmark public health ruling, this would be quite something that really would be protecting lives, but is it worth the voter cost? I think that, to me, is where this lies. But as Joanne said, I mean, this is not dead forever if this dies this week. It certainly has made progress.

Rovner: It’s a really interesting issue though. All right, well, speaking of smoking, the Department of Health and Human Services is recommending that marijuana be removed from the DEA’s [Drug Enforcement Administration’s] list of drugs with no medical use and a high potential for abuse, the so-called Schedule 1 drug. Instead, the department is saying it should be placed on Schedule 3, which are with drugs that can be abused but can also be helpful, like anabolic steroids and ketamine. Given that medical marijuana is now legal in 38 states and recreational marijuana is legal in 24, isn’t this just kind of recognizing reality?

Kenen: I mean there’s been pressure for years. I mean, Schedule 1 is heroin. It’s hard to make the case now that marijuana is as harmful as heroin or other Schedule 1 drugs. The FDA isn’t ready to say it should be completely unscheduled and just do whatever you like, but there’s a big difference between a 1 and a 3, and there’s a lot of gaps between federal law, including things that involve financing for the marijuana industry or the cannabis industry. So there’s a lot of gaps still between state law and federal law, but this is a partial closure of one of those many gaps. And it’s a recognition that, not just a political and social reality, but also a science reality. I mean, even if you’re not crazy, if you’re not that sanguine about marijuana, it’s still hard to make a case that it’s as dangerous as heroin. It’s not.

Rovner: “Reefer Madness” was a long time ago.

Kenen: Yeah, but it had a long tail.

Rovner: It did. Well, among the recognized uses for marijuana are to help combat nausea caused by chemotherapy and for stimulating appetite in patients with AIDS. Meanwhile, a kind of provocative study out this week from the University of Colorado found that weed can actually motivate people to exercise, which seems kind of the polar opposite of the idea that it just turns people into slackers and couch potatoes. Now that we have drugs that can help make people not hungry, how big a deal would it be to have another one that actually helps people exercise? I mean, I assume that there are a lot of things about marijuana that we don’t know, both good and bad.

Kenen: Julie, after you sent that around yesterday, I read that article, and there’s a lot of problems with that study. I mean, it was all people who smoke marijuana when they run or ingest it. So it wasn’t a scientific gold standard. I mean, if you ask a bunch of people, “Oh, do you like running high?” and they say “Yes,” and then say, “OK, do you want to be in our study about running high?” [laughs]

Rovner: In Colorado, where recreational marijuana has been legal for several years.

Kenen: I mean, there’s still a lot of unknowns. If you talk to the proponents of medical marijuana, they’ll tell you it cures everything. And I think all of us would be somewhat skeptical that marijuana cures everything. I’m not convinced that exercise motivation thing is … I mean, I could be persuaded, but that study didn’t persuade me.

Rovner: My point, though, is that, I mean one of the things that had been difficult over the years is that it had been hard to actually get marijuana to do medical studies like this. There was only one place that grew it. I think it was in Mississippi.

Kenen: In Mississippi, and it was really poor quality.

Rovner: Right. So I mean now we can at least presumably have better-quality studies on these kinds of things, right?

Kenen: I don’t think it’s great. I think it’s better.

Rovner: I said we can have, not that we do have.

Kenen: I mean someone else might know more. I read about this and I can’t remember the details now and maybe Lauren or Rachel remembers better than I do, but it’s not just from Mississippi, but it’s not from everywhere. There’s more supplies for medical, but I don’t think it’s abundant and perfect.

Rovner: But I think that’s one of the things that changing the schedule would actually help fix that, actually taking it off of Schedule 1 with heroin, as you point out, and putting it on Schedule 3 with other things that have been studied and have been found to have some medical uses. So another thing that we shall watch. Well, turning to abortion, a grand jury in Ohio decided not to indict Brittany Watts, who miscarried at home after being turned away from the hospital only to have one of the nurses there call the police. Officials in Warren, Ohio, wanted to try her for a crime called “abuse of a corpse.” We talked about this the last two episodes. Mind you, Ohio is a state that just voted to enshrine abortion rights in its constitution, and this was not an abortion. But I imagine this goes down in the “no matter where you live, you’re at legal risk for pregnancy loss” column, right? I mean, it does seem to be kind of ominous that there are still officials who still want to criminalize basically pregnancy loss, however it happens.

Weber: Yeah, I mean, I’ll chime in on this. I mean, this case has been watched by folks not only in this country but around the world because, just to remind the audience, Brittany Watts, she was miscarrying and was sent home from the hospital and what happened is that she miscarried into a toilet at home and law enforcement took the drastic steps of retrieving the fetus from the toilet to then charge her with this “abuse of a corpse” law statute after the hospital, by the way, had also clearly consulted with its legal team over what the appropriate action to cover the hospital was. Not to cover the patient but to cover the hospital.

So she miscarried at home. Then this very ancient law statute was pulled out, and I mean, we don’t know how many law statutes like this over what’s called “abuse of a corpse” exist. Legally, it’s also “Is a fetus a corpse?” — was that debate as well in this case? I mean, I think we’ll see what happens across the country, but yes, Julie, I think you’re correct that this is very concerning for women across the country who could have a miscarriage at home. Could you be legally liable for not handling that as some activist prosecution would prefer that you do?

Kenen: Right. I think in this case, she’d been into the ER and out a couple of times, and I think the last time she wasn’t discharged, she just left. But most miscarriages are very early in pregnancy and it’s an embryo. It’s not even a fetus yet, and it’s tiny. So how do you even define what a corpse is? Do you even know that you were pregnant? Losing a pregnancy is a trauma. It’s a medical condition and it’s a trauma. What happened to her, she lost a pregnancy. She had been in and out of the hospital. She didn’t feel like her needs were being met there. That’s why she left. There was a lot of confusion about what to do. There was no confusion that this was a naturally occurring miscarriage, a premature rupturing of her membranes. Nobody, including the nurse who called the cops, nobody said that she’s trying to do a self-abortion or that she’s doing anything illegal. She had a pregnancy loss.

Rovner: There was a medical examiner report that said …

Kenen: Yes.

Rovner: … this was a stillborn.

Kenen: Right. I don’t think people necessarily know what to do if you …

Rovner: Nor can you imagine should they know what to do. I mean, it’s not like she didn’t follow standard procedure. There is no standard procedure for this. Speaking of people in states where abortion is still legal, still having to pay attention, in Texas, the district court judge who tried to overturn the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill, mifepristone, granted a motion allowing Idaho and Missouri to intervene in the case, which the Supreme Court agreed to hear last month. This could be a big deal because it means that even if the original plaintiffs in the case, which is a group representing anti-abortion obstetrician-gynecologists is found not to have standing, which seems likely, according to most experts, it’s not clear that they are harmed in any way by mifepristone. The states will still be there to keep the case active. Although how the states are harmed by mifepristone is also kind of a stretch. I feel like the anti-abortion forces in these states just aren’t paying attention to the voters, and I guess they don’t have to. I mean, I think this and the Brittany Watts case sort of suggests that even if abortion is legal, even if the voters have spoken, there are still officials who think that it is their obligation to push their anti-abortion views as far as they can.

Kenen: I mean, we see how the elections have gone in every state that’s had a ballot initiative, and we haven’t seen the anti-abortion forces say, whoops, we lost and go home. I mean, they still have the Supreme Court ruling. They still have plenty of momentum. They’ve got a federal election, they’ve got a presidential election coming up, and it’s not going away, and they’re not the will of the voters. I mean, to be fair, many of them do believe that this is murder and that they’re morally obligated to keep fighting. I mean, if you want to acknowledge that, that that’s the belief for many, not necessarily all people on the … there are people who are doing it for political reasons too, but there are people who sincerely believe that they’re morally obligated to keep fighting this even if the voters have not been enlightened to the truth.

Rovner: All right. Well, finally this week, a continuing story out of Ohio that speaks to some of the serious issues with the health care workforce. The state Board of Pharmacy is recommending that a CVS pharmacy in Canton be fined and put on probation after inspections found dangers to patients from understaffing. According to the Ohio Capital Journal, which has been following this story pretty closely, inspectors found the understaffing so severe that it was taking two weeks for prescriptions to be filled and in at least one case a prescription was filled for the wrong medication. During an on-site inspection, the inside counter was closed, medications hadn’t been shelved, and it took an inspector 20 minutes just to get a staffer’s attention.

The Canton store is one of eight CVS pharmacies in the state to have been cited by the board. Now, we’ve heard similar stories, not just about CVS and not just about CVS in Ohio, but about Walgreens and other chain drugstores. Are regulators finally catching up with some of the anecdotal reports that we’ve been seeing about the stress that’s happening at the pharmacy counter?

Cohrs: I think this was a good example of a response to that, and Ohio has been on the front end of looking into pharmacies and the drug supply chain, so I think they are pretty well equipped to look into an issue like this. But I think it starts to quantify and just build the case that this does have patient impacts. It’s not just a little bit of a longer line. I mean some of the wait times for these medications — two weeks, a month. Just imagine going to the pharmacy and being told to wait a month for medication. It can be really problematic for patients. So I think, certainly, it’s not surprising to me that Ohio is kind of on the front end of this and it certainly could be the beginning of more enforcement if officials have the bandwidth to do it.

Rovner: I know. I guess the issue here is the pharmacists said during the pandemic that obviously it was a pandemic, they were having trouble getting people. They were being asked to do other things, which they still are, like give vaccines. And not just covid vaccines, it’s “now go get your shingles shot, go get your flu shot.” Everybody’s being pushed to these pharmacies and they’re not necessarily increasing staff to deal with the increasing workload. There is a point at which it starts to endanger patients, and we’re starting to see that point.

Kenen: Also they get paid for some of that, right? I mean they get paid for doing shots. And it’s not super, super labor-intensive. You have your technicians who know how to do it, you can do it pretty fast. And one reason that pharmacies do want to give shots is when you come in and you get your shot, you also end up picking up shampoo or whatever. So I mean it’s a way of getting people in the stores. There’s sort of different issues with pharmacies. I mean, I personally have had more than one time where I’ve been given the wrong medication. I look, and not only that, I don’t want to identify which pharmacy, they gave me the wrong one and I said, “This is the wrong one,” and they said, “Whoops, sorry, come back in an hour,” and I came back in an hour and they gave me the same wrong one. So I’ve never walked back in there again. I think there’ve been a number of reports, not as egregious as Ohio and CVS, about the pressure on the pharmacy techs and that they’re not enough of them, and I don’t know enough about the insides of that. Is it that there are not enough of them to hire because there’s a shortage or are the company’s not hiring enough of them and it’s working them to death? Not literally, but squeezing as much.

Rovner: Doing it for the bottom line.

Kenen: I mean we all probably have our theories. This is a relatively newish problem of the pharmacies being this overworked and we’ll be hearing more of it.

Weber: Yeah, I just want to add, I mean, Julie, you talked about the bottom line, and we’ve talked about on this podcast, I think two weeks ago, that study that came out about how private equity-run hospitals have less staffing and have higher patient errors. You can’t help but wonder if there’s some parallels here in the pursuit of profits possibly over patients.

Rovner: We’ve seen pharmacists at some of these chain stores basically say that, the ones who are there. Well, while we were talking about health workforce woes, Joanne, your extra credit speaks to this. So why don’t you go ahead and do it right now?

Kenen: Mine is an essay in Undark by a physician named Arjun Sharma and it’s called “Why Incentives to Attract Doctors to Rural Areas Haven’t Worked.” All of us know that there’s still a shortage of physicians and other health care workers, nurses, and everything else, probably pharmacists, in rural areas. I didn’t realize that the problem had actually been identified as far back as Teddy Roosevelt’s administration. Most of the efforts to resolve it actually were around 1965, when Medicare was passed and there was an official designation of these underserved areas. Basically, nothing has really worked, and this physician, Dr. Arjun Sharma, talked about the incentives. It’s not about money. That giving people loan forgiveness or extra pay to move off to this unknown rural life, temporarily or permanently, we know it doesn’t work because we’ve been doing it for 50, 60 years and it doesn’t work. He said his own experiences of having gone to a rural area is that he ended up loving the practice of medicine. He loved seeing patients in his community. He loved the different kind of interactions, and that he thought that was the way you might be able to pay someone to quit smoking, but getting somebody to go practice out in the middle of nowhere, you have to talk about why it’s wonderful and satisfying. And that the misconception is not that you’ll get money for going to the rural areas. The correct approach should be you’ll get satisfaction from practicing in a rural area.

Rovner: This is obviously another of the continuing mismatches in the U.S. health care system, such as it is. All right, well that is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with Darius Tahir about the “Bill of the Month” and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast my colleague Darius Tahir, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” installment. Darius, thanks for joining us.

Darius Tahir: Thanks for having me.

Rovner: So, this month’s patient did what a lot of us do in her situation. She didn’t feel well, thought she needed a professional consult, but it wasn’t really an emergency and, fearing it was covid or something else contagious, she booked a telehealth visit. Tell us some of the particulars of what happened here.

Tahir: So in fall of 2022, Elyse Greenblatt, a Queens, New York, resident, came back from a trip in Rwanda with a little sinus trouble. She thought it was covid but couldn’t rule it out, and so she’s like, “Why don’t I book a telehealth visit through my usual health system, Mount Sinai in New York City, just see what a professional opinion is like?” She had a very quick visit, as she remembers, and simply got prescribed some Flonase and some antibiotics. Sort of left it at that for a while.

Rovner: Which seems typical for …

Tahir: Very typical.

Rovner: So then as we say, the bill came. Now lots of insurers recommend telehealth, and lots of telehealth services compete on price. But that’s not what happened here, right?

Tahir: Right, absolutely. She looked in and saw that the app that she booked through, Mount Sinai’s personal record app, estimated a cost of $60 for a visit. That’s a competitive cost for a telehealth visit, I would say, an urgent care visit, but as it turned out, the doctor was out of network according to her insurer, Empire BlueCross BlueShield, and she ended up getting a bill of $660, which is way outside the average of this kind of telehealth urgent care visit.

Rovner: And this wasn’t anything fancy, right? This wasn’t like the doctor had to take this full medical history or anything?

Tahir: No, it was just, as she remembers, a very quick five-minute, 10-minute type visit and turned out to be very expensive because of the out-of-network nature of the visit.

Rovner: And, of course, this is exactly what the No Surprises bill was for — when you go to an in-network hospital and get a bill from an out-of-network doctor. Shouldn’t this have been considered a surprise medical bill?

Tahir: That’s a great question. So, as you mentioned, there was the [No] Surprises Act, which is a law that prevents patients from getting bills that are surprises to them, right? If you’re in a hospital, you kind of assume everybody’s in network, but maybe the anesthesiologist is out of network, in this case, Greenblatt usually goes to Mount Sinai and, usually, those doctors are in network. The problem is the specific doctor she saw in telehealth, who was provided to her luck of the draw, is out of network. So she gets hit with a big bill, $660, and goes on to protest it with the medical system. They’re kind of giving her the runaround.

Eventually, I hear about this story, and I’m like, OK, well I’ll ask some questions with Mount Sinai’s PR people. They eventually provide me with a form, a consent form, that consents to out-of-network charges. What’s kind of curious about this bill, and it’s both kind of legally curious and we’ll say ethically curious, is that both the bill and her medical record have time stamps about when the activity occurred. So she signs it one time, the medical record says another time, slightly earlier, than when the visit occurred. So you would think on its face that the consent was signed after the visit occurred. Now that’s a little weird that you’re suddenly getting a form after everything in the visit is happening.

Rovner: I mean, the bottom line here is that you’re supposed to consent in advance, not after the fact.

Tahir: In advance, exactly, yeah. It’s not just something that strikes you as normal, this is how business should be done, but it’s an interesting legal distinction as well. As you mentioned, you’ve got the No Surprises Act, which is a bill that’s supposed to protect us from surprise bills that we don’t expect, and one of the requirements of the bill is that if you do do this consent, it’s provided in a timely fashion. The other one is that if you go through a hospital where you’re covered, then there should also be coverage there because sometimes the hospital is covered, but the doctors within the hospital are not necessarily covered. And in this case, the doctor was not necessarily covered, even though she goes to the hospital system quite regularly and her services are generally covered there.

Rovner: Also, doesn’t the law say if you’re going to get out-of-network care, they have to tell you before you get the care?

Tahir: Precisely. So that is one of the requirements of the No Surprises Act, and the Mount Sinai PR person I spoke to said this is a little non-standard. This is kind of an exception, if it did happen. So, still, there’s a little bit of a loophole in the No Surprises Act. I spoke to a lawyer who was an expert in the No Surprises Act, and one of the things she pointed out about the bill is that you can’t really tell necessarily who’s putting in the bill, what entity, right? Is it the hospital? Is it some other entity? The No Surprises Act covers this laundry list of entities, including hospitals, including some outpatient facilities, but in this case, she couldn’t really tell what entity was billing Greenblatt and therefore couldn’t tell how that fit into the No Surprises Act scheme.

Rovner: And whether that entity was actually covered by the No Surprises Act.

Tahir: Precisely. So that’s kind of where we’re left.

Rovner: What eventually happened with the bill?

Tahir: It’s kind of still unpaid and unresolved more than a year after the actual service was rendered, so it’s kind of still in limbo.

Rovner: After a year. What can patients do to prevent this from happening to them? I mean, it sounds like this patient did everything right.

Tahir: Right. I guess you got to check and see that your doctors are always in network, as amazing as that sounds. Check the forms that you get, even though they’re often tons of them, there’s a HIPAA form, there are all these forms you get. I guess you’ve just got to be careful what you sign and pay attention to what you sign. Even though oftentimes when you’re going to the doctor, it’s an incredibly stressful time, yourself might be sick, a loved one might be sick, it’s tough to say, but you’ve got to pay attention to the fine print when you’re going ahead with this care, as incredible as that sounds.

Rovner: It’s not like it used to be. Darius Tahir, thank you so much.

Tahir: 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. Joanne, you’ve already done yours. Lauren, why don’t you go next?

Weber: Yeah. Mine is a piece in The Guardian by Jessica Glenza titled “Majority of Debtors to US Hospitals Now People With Health Insurance.” I think this is something that everyone on this panel knows, but I think it’s just a striking, if you take a step back and look at it, the concept of insurance for the average American would seem to think that would insure you from bad debts and from hospital debt. I think studies like this and stories like this are a good 10,000-foot-step-back reminder that this system is very broken and not working the way it should. So I think it’s just helpful to continue to realize, because this is a sea change from when only 1 in 10 folks that were insured had debt. I mean, so very much we are seeing a shift, and I think that’s important to consider as we talk about insurance issues throughout this podcast and throughout our coverage.

Rovner: It was in the early 2000s, I think, when standard deductibles started being in the four figures instead of the three figures. I mean, originally they were like $1,000, $1,500. Now people have $4,000 and $5,000 deductibles, but we know that people don’t have $4,000 and $5,000 in savings. So, of course, they’re in debt if they’re going to go get medical care. They do not have or any way to get the amount of money that they are expected to cough up before their insurance takes over, and how no one saw this coming, I can’t imagine because it’s been blaring in huge lights the whole time. Sorry, Rachel, go ahead.

Cohrs: My extra credit is a piece in The Washington Post. The headline is “Republican Governors in 15 States Reject Summer Food Money For Kids,” by Annie Gowen. And this published a week ago, I think, but it definitely flew under the radar for me. And I think it’s a great example of outside-of-D.C. journalism reporting on the consequences of state uptake on some of these optional policies that Congress passes. And I think the part that stood out most was a couple quotes, one from Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds that said she opposed food assistance for low-income youth because childhood obesity has become an epidemic, and another where the governor of Nebraska was saying that he just doesn’t believe in welfare, so they’re not taking this money. Obviously, there is precedent for Republican governors not taking money that could help offer more services, make residents healthier, but this was just a pretty striking example, I think, because it does deal with kids and food insecurity. So I thought it was great accountability work for outside the Beltway.

Rovner: Basically, this is the summer school lunch program for kids because they’re not in school and they don’t necessarily get their lunch at school in the summer, so this is how they can get lunch, but apparently some governors say they don’t want to do that. Well, my extra credit this week is from Rachel’s colleague, Tara Bannow at Stat, and it’s called “Pumping Milk at JPM Was a Nightmare. It’s Part of a Bigger Problem in the Industry.” And in case there are listeners who don’t know, last week was the big J.P. Morgan Health[care] Conference in San Francisco, which each year draws the big money of health care to a hotel to chat each other up basically. Well, Tara Bannow, who does an awesome job covering the industry, is also back from parental leave and still breastfeeding, which means she needs a private place to pump on a regular basis.

The folks at JPM told her she would have access to a space, but turned out it was locked almost every time she needed it, and she ended up pumping in a bathroom stall, which is, and I won’t get into the details here, not ideal. Calls to other big health conferences suggested such problems would not happen there, but the suggestion of also that if there were more women in high places at these conferences, it wouldn’t be such an afterthought. It was a really, really good, thoughtful piece and good job.

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, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and @julie.rovner at Threads. Joanne, where are you these days?

Kenen: I’m mostly on threads, @joannekenen1.

Rovner: Lauren?

Weber: Still on X @LaurenWeberHP.

Rovner: Rachel?

Cohrs: Still on X, @rachelcohrs.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

As this election year begins in earnest, making it harder for Congress to pass bills, lawmakers on Capitol Hill are still struggling to fund the government for the fiscal year that began last October. And many health priorities hang in the balance.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is again wading into the abortion debate, accepting a case out of Idaho that pits a federal law requiring emergency care, including for pregnant women, against the state’s strict abortion ban.

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

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Tami Luhby
CNN

@Luhby

Read Tami's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• In Washington, lawmakers have reportedly reached a deal that could pave the way for passing necessary government spending bills. But it is unlikely they will pass a full package before the current extensions end, leaving many federal health programs hanging. And ahead of next week’s Iowa caucuses, it bears asking what Republicans would do in health if the party reclaims the White House.
• The Supreme Court is again stepping into the fray over abortion rights, choosing to review the conflict between Idaho’s abortion ban and a federal law requiring emergency medical care. It is notable that justices did not have to take this case and, by swooping in now, are setting up another major abortion ruling before the 2024 election.
• The Biden administration announced it will scale back so-called conscience protections for health providers that the Trump administration sought to beef up. The back-and-forth over the policy — which was created during the George W. Bush administration — reinforces the importance of pressing presidential candidates about what they would do administratively on abortion policy, rather than asking what bills they might sign into law.
• News out of Florida this week: Newly introduced legislation there would, among other things, classify abortion as a felony and penalize those outside the state involved in the sale or distribution of abortion pills if they are “likely to be used in Florida” — a concerning example of a state effort to regulate access to abortion nationwide.
• And the FDA approved Florida’s request to import drugs from Canada, a change for which Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is taking credit — though both President Joe Biden and former president Donald Trump could also claim some of that credit. But there are a lot of hurdles left before the state receives its first shipments, and due to the way the policy will be implemented, it may not save the state much money anyway.

“This Week in Health Misinformation” highlights Olympic gold medalist and medical crowdfunding beneficiary Mary Lou Retton, who said this week she could not afford health insurance before her headline-grabbing bout of pneumonia because her preexisting conditions made having insurance too expensive. But a decade into the existence of the Affordable Care Act, the fact is that patients can no longer be penalized on the insurance market for preexisting conditions — and, as the record 20 million Americans who enrolled in ACA coverage this year may attest, there are plenty of federal subsidies available to help afford insurance, too.

Also this week, Rovner interviews American Medical Association President Jesse Ehrenfeld, whose focus is helping the nation’s physicians navigate a rapidly changing health care system.

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

Julie Rovner: CNN’s “Bottled Water Contains Thousands of Nanoplastics So Small They Can Invade the Body’s Cells, Study Says,” by Sandee LaMotte. Also, ScienceAlert’s “It Turns Out Paper Straws Might Pose a Serious Problem Too,” by Carly Cassella. Also, The Washington Post’s “How Plastic Hides in Supposedly Eco-Friendly Laundry Products,” by Michael J. Coren.

Tami Luhby: KFF Health News’ “Most People Dropped in Medicaid ‘Unwinding’ Never Tried to Renew Coverage, Utah Finds,” by Phil Galewitz.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Stat’s “Texas Taxpayers Wanted to Help the Poor Get Health Care. Instead They’re Funding a Medical School at a Wealthy University,” by Rachel Cohrs.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The New York Times’ “The F.D.A. Warned an Asthma Drug Could Induce Despair. Many Were Never Told,” by Christina Jewett and Benjamin Mueller.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: All About the (Government) Funding

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: 329Episode Number: All About the (Government) FundingPublished: Jan. 11, 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, Jan. 11, 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: Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Tami Luhby of CNN.

Tami Luhby: Good morning.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with Jesse Ehrenfeld, this year’s president of the American Medical Association. It’s a bumpy time to be a doctor, and the AMA is more relevant than it’s been for quite a few years. But first, this week’s news. So we heard over the weekend that House and Senate negotiators reached a deal on top-line spending ceilings for defense and non-defense discretionary spending.

Actually, they were kind of the top lines, I believe, that they agreed to last summer, and then the House Republicans tried to change. That is all well and good, and it is definitely a prerequisite for passing full-year appropriations bills, but that’s not going to happen between now and Jan. 19, when the first of two temporary spending bills expires. So what do we expect to happen?

Ollstein: I was up on the Hill yesterday, and it’s a very “what they’re saying vs. what they’re doing” situation. They’re talking a lot about, “We got this top line. We’re moving forward. People are somewhat warming to the idea of another short-term CR [continuing resolution] to give them a little breathing room to get this done.” But then Republicans who were pissed about the entire process voted down an unrelated rule on an unrelated bill just to say, “We’re mad.” So that’s obviously not a good sign for getting big things done quickly in the next few weeks.

An issue I’m tracking is also conservatives who are disgruntled about the level of spending being higher than they wanted, saying, “Well, if we’re going to agree to this, we might as well get some policy wins out of it.” And they’re digging in harder on some of these anti-abortion provisions, other culture war things. I think the health care ones are being somewhat overshadowed right now by the immigration border stuff, but the health care things are still in the mix, for sure.

Rovner: Yeah. The CR that expires first also includes continuing authorizations for a bunch of health programs like community health centers and a delay of a bunch of scheduled Medicare payment cuts. Tami, you’re following WIC [Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program], I know, and food stamps. Do we have any idea what the fate is going to be of these things that will also expire when that first CR expires? Do we expect they’ll continue until Congress decides what to do?

Luhby: Well, actually things are looking a little better for WIC participants in terms of a shutdown, not necessarily in terms of full-year funding. But if the government had shut down in October, the USDA warned that it actually only had a few days left of money to provide for WIC. But if the government does shut down next week, then the USDA has told me that SNAP participants, food stamp participants, and WIC participants can expect to continue to get their benefits for food stamps January and February and for WIC January, February, March.

But separate from that, one of the issues that WIC participants have — and WIC, by the way, is the program that provides funding for pregnant women, new moms, infants, and young children to buy groceries. The WIC program is underfunded because there’s actually a big growth in enrollment. And so, even though the Senate provided some more money in their initial bill, they actually need more than a billion dollars more to continue the program at the current participation levels.

And a lot of folks are warning that if Congress doesn’t provide more money, there could actually be waiting lists for the first time in decades. So it’s a big issue that’s continuing because, as we know, the Republicans are not looking to add more money to nutrition assistance.

Rovner: Jumping ahead, it’s a little bit to the abortion debate. This is the argument that if you’re basically going to force women to have babies, you’re going to need to help support them if the women otherwise would’ve had an abortion because they couldn’t afford it. I think where we are with WIC, I think, is sort of the leading edge of this.

Luhby: And WIC is actually very important to that because it also provides breastfeeding assistance and guidance as well as other supports for new moms.

Rovner: So there were things, though, that didn’t even make it into the CR. One of them is the 3.4% cut in Medicare doctor pay. That took effect Jan. 1. Doctors I know would like to get that rolled back. There’s other things that are hoping to catch a ride on whatever the next vehicle is, right?

Karlin-Smith: I mean, one thing I had been watching is PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] reform. There seemed like there was some bipartisan and bicameral momentum to try and tack that on to the next big moving package. And one positive thing for that is that it does offer some amount of savings that then could be applied to other areas like spending, including potentially helping maybe with some of the Medicare cuts. So that’s something in the mix to look for.

Rovner: Yeah. Something that actually is proceeding on a separate track, right? We don’t expect that to be folded into the appropriations — unless we do. My impression was that was proceeding on its own, at least for the moment.

Karlin-Smith: I think it was proceeding on its own, but there’s been talk of could they fold it into any deal that struck to fund the government, because I think the likelihood that it really does fully clear both the House and Senate on their own is small.

Rovner: Yes, it is an election year. It is harder for Congress to get anything done. Speaking of which, on the campaign trail, the Iowa caucus is next week. Boy, that sort of snuck up on us. Former President [Donald] Trump still seems very likely to win, and he’s once again vowing to undo the Affordable Care Act, which, by the way, hit an all-time enrollment record of 20 million this week. And open enrollment isn’t even quite over. Tami, do we know what Trump would do instead? That seems to be the part. He doesn’t ever say.

Luhby: No. It’s pretty much the same plan that he probably has from 2016 and 2017, which we never really fully learned about. So, no, it’s just going to be replaced with a “better plan” because, in his view, Obamacare is failing, and as we know, [Florida Gov.] Ron DeSantis also jumped on the same bandwagon, saying that he would actually also come up with a better plan, but he needs a few months to think about it.

Rovner: Because it’s always been right about to happen, of course.

Luhby: Well, as you may have heard, health care is complicated.

Rovner: And we’ll see something in two weeks.

Luhby: Right. Along with his block grant proposal for Medicaid that he mentioned at last night’s CNN debate.

Rovner: Yes. I was sort of taken by the comments of how they would fix health care in that debate, because Nikki Haley says, “We can fix it with tort reform and transparency.”

Luhby: Transparency. Yes.

Rovner: Right. Which are nice things, and as we say, almost every week, Congress is working on those things, but they are not going to solve what ails the health care system. All right, let us turn to abortion. Remember last week when I said we were still waiting to hear from the Supreme Court on the emergency petition from Idaho regarding the conflict between its state abortion ban and the federal Emergency Medical Treatment & Active Labor Act, EMTALA?

Well, on Friday, the court not only took the case, it overturned the stay of Idaho’s ban. So, at least for now, doctors cannot even provide abortions in medical emergencies unless the woman is at immediate risk of death. Alice, I assume that gives us a hint of where the court might be going with this case, and I imagine also that similar case out of Texas.

Ollstein: Yeah. So again, with the Supreme Court, you kind of have to read the tea leaves and make educated guesses. They’re obviously very secretive. But people who are following this case closely that I’ve spoken to, they think that both the stay of the lower-court ruling and the fact that they took this case at all is the sign that they’re really gunning for ruling on the side of the state abortion restrictions. Because this is really about the state-federal clash. When state abortion bans run into federal protections for patients in emergency circumstances, and which will prevail in that circumstance. So they didn’t have to take this case. The thinking was there is eventually going to be a circuit split on this issue between the 9th Circuit and the 5th Circuit. But the 9th Circuit hasn’t had a chance to rule yet. And so they could have waited, let this play out, allowed the 9th Circuit to hear the case and issue a decision, that would’ve probably punted this case until after the election. So it’s really interesting that they instead wanted to swoop in, allow Idaho to leapfrog the 9th Circuit, and also insert themselves into this really politically volatile case, and now they’re poised to issue a ruling right before the 2024 election that could have major implications for the whole country.

Rovner: They’re going to hear the mifepristone case before this summer too, right?

Ollstein: Absolutely. And so even people who had sort of assumed on the mifepristone case like, “Oh, the Supreme Court’s going to kind of punt. They’re going to dismiss on standing.” Now, because of how aggressive they’re being in this other case, I have experts telling me, “Well, now I’m not so sure about the mifepristone case. Maybe they don’t care about optics as much as they used to.”

Rovner: Well, also, I think this is this Supreme Court’s theme, of “let states do whatever they want.” Even though federal law is supposed to trump state law, they seem to be reversing that in a rather aggressive fashion.

Ollstein: Yes. A big theme is definitely skepticism of federal rulemaking power. This falls under that same category as well.

Rovner: Well, speaking of federal rulemaking power, those who follow abortion policy in D.C. know that every time an administration changes parties, the so-called Mexico City policy that bans funding to international groups that support abortion rights gets either canceled or restored, depending on which party is in power. Well, now we have another policy that seems to be flip-flopping every time an administration changes. It was a rule first issued at the end of the George W. Bush administration. The so-called conscience rule made it easier for medical professionals and others in health care to decline to provide care that violates their religious or moral beliefs. So not just abortion but transgender care, in some cases, just treating people with AIDS. The Obama administration scaled back the Bush rule, and then the Trump administration broadened it. Then it got blocked by the courts, and now the Biden administration has formally rolled back the Trump changes that never really took effect. Alice, where are we with this?

Ollstein: Like you said, this is a back-and-forth, and I think this is why a lot of the questions being asked of candidates on the campaign trail right now, related to abortion, are the wrong questions. They keep getting asked about what kind of bills they would sign. That’s not the question. The question is what would they do administratively, which they could do so much. They could undo this. They could reverse all kinds of things. I follow the Title X stuff. I follow the Mexico City policy on restrictions on international spending on reproductive health. There’s just so much, obviously — FDA regulation of abortion pills — but these are the things we should be focused [on], not a bill that Congress has shown itself unable to pass even with one-party control of Congress.

Rovner: Nikki Haley keeps correctly saying there aren’t 60 votes for anything in the Senate related to abortion.

Ollstein: Right. But then, she also is saying that to mean a future Republican president couldn’t really do much, and that part is not true. They could do a lot.

Rovner: Exactly. Well, moving on, it’s January, and state legislatures are coming back into session. And we’re seeing some pretty eye-popping bills introduced in Florida, where abortion rights supporters just secured enough signatures to get a referendum protecting abortion rights on the 2024 ballot. Republican state Rep. David Borrero introduced a bill that would not only ban abortion, it would classify it as a third-degree felony with penalties of up to 10 years in prison. It also seeks to reach anyone outside the state who makes, sells, or mails abortion pills if they are, quote, “likely to be used in Florida.” The bill also defines personhood as beginning at the moment of fertilization, which would, among other things, make most birth control illegal and give fetuses constitutional rights. Alice, this bill is obviously not likely to pass, but legislators are playing the long game here by trying to make these things look sort of not out of the ordinary, right?

Ollstein: Yeah, the pill one, I think, is more the one to watch there. I’m curious if other states try to do that as well. Obviously, that runs into legal concerns about regulating interstate commerce, et cetera. But I think that we’ve seen these sort of nation attempts to restrict the movement of both people and medications across state lines, since that is a huge way that people are managing to terminate pregnancies despite bans right now. And so I think there’s only going to be more and more activity in that area to try to close off those remaining outlets for people. But yes, on the personhood front, that’s something that states have been attempting to do for a long time now, obviously more recently. And I think there’s sort of a strategy of, “Let’s just put it in everything we can. Let’s throw it in everything we can. Let’s throw it in bills. Let’s throw it in amicus briefs.” And the hope is to eventually force this issue in court and to get a court to rule on whether the 14th Amendment covers fetuses, basically. Will that happen and when remains to be seen, but there’s definitely an effort to sort of seed it in the landscape.

Rovner: Sarah, this obviously — not so much the personhood part, although maybe that too — but trying to ban the movement of medication is something that clearly impacts the FDA. They seem to have been pretty quiet about this, but there’s an awful lot that seems to be sort of threatening the basic core procedures of what the FDA does. Are you hearing anybody whispering about this? Is there concern?

Karlin-Smith: I think the mifepristone case at the Supreme Court is a concern for people who watch FDA’s power and regulation, not just because of abortion but because it is seen as depending on how the court decides that case is something that really could touch on all of its regulatory authority as well. Certainly, this provision that Florida is trying to put in is really something where they seem like they’re effectively trying to regulate the abortion pill throughout the entire country and regulate manufacturers. So that would be concerning, again, if that somehow came to pass and was not struck down by courts, as Alice mentioned, for interstate commerce regulation, which is not some power that is usually given to the states, but so, in general, the abortion pill controversy makes anybody who’s impacted by the FDA regulation nervous.

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission has entered the chat. This week, it barred a tech company from selling data on people’s visits to medical centers and other health facilities. This was not affecting abortion. They were actually just trying to help people figure out where people are and help them sort of get through their medical undertakings. But this seems like kind of a big deal enforcing privacy post-Dobbs. It’s the first one of these I’ve seen. Have you seen any of these, Alice?

Ollstein: I’m in the same camp as you. Yeah. This is sort of the first I’ve seen of this. But as has been the trend over the last couple of years, it’s a very “throw things against the wall and see what sticks” kind of environment, and so you can’t dismiss the outliers because the outliers can very quickly become the norm.

Rovner: This obviously was not a company that was trying to get women’s menstrual data and figure out whether they’re pregnant and whether they’re going to have an abortion. But there is a lot of concern that because there’s so much medical data floating out now in the metaverse, shall we say, that it would not be that hard to do that. And I guess the FTC is trying to plant a flag and say, “Mm-mm, don’t even try.” Although I’m sure people will …

Ollstein: Again, circling back to our previous theme, like, who a presidential administration installs at places like the FTC that you might not think that has anything to do with health care and abortion, but it certainly does. It certainly can. Same with DOJ, Labor Department. A lot of these things touch on reproductive health in ways that aren’t always obvious.

Rovner: That’s right. Well, turning to prescription drug news, the FDA has approved Florida’s request to import cheaper drugs from Canada. But, Tami, you wrote about this. This comes with a long list of caveats, right? It’s not like they just opened the borders and said, “OK, buy what you want.”

Luhby: No, and Florida has also put forth a fairly restricted proposal. It’s only going to be for people in their public payer program, people like inmates and people who are cared for by the county health systems and, later, Medicaid. And it’s also a pretty small list of drugs, drugs for HIV/AIDS and mental illness, and certain ones. But no, there’s a lot of hurdles before the state can actually start importing drugs. There’s going to likely be a lawsuit by PhRMA. They came out pretty strongly against it. They don’t want this, and Canada doesn’t necessarily want this. They said this in 2020 when the Trump administration first indicated that they were going to move in this direction, and then Health Canada on Friday put out a pretty strong statement saying they are clear in its position. “Bulk importation will not provide an effective solution to the problem of high drug prices in the U.S.” So there’s a long path before Florida will be able to actually see this and an even longer path before its general residents will see it. People may think, “Oh, I can go up to CVS now and order my Canadian version of the drug, which will be much cheaper.” And that’s not at all the case.

Rovner: Sarah, this has been going on for more than 20 years — I think I covered it first time in 1998 — because it’s really popular among Republicans and Democrats because it sounds so good. “We’ll just buy cheaper drugs from other countries where they have the same drugs, and they sell them for less money because they have price controls.” But Canada can’t even supply Florida, much less the rest of the country, right?

Karlin-Smith: Right. I think people, sometimes you look at Canada on a map geographically. It’s a very large area, but the population compared to the U.S. is much smaller. So the supply chain that’s feeding Canada is very different. And then you get into why HHS and FDA has usually pushed back against this idea is because they’re concerned about securing the supply-chain safety and making sure people are actually getting what they … think they’re getting and know how to use the drug. And what’s basically happened under starting the Trump administration and then Biden’s kind of continued it is they came up with a pathway to sort of make importation potentially possible. But they put in so many hoops that these states will have to go through and so many processes in place to ensure the safety of it that by the time Florida does all of this, and again, as Tami mentioned, FDA hasn’t cleared any specific drugs for Florida to import yet; each drug product still is going to have to go through a bunch of steps to get that OK. So by the time they do all of that, it doesn’t look like it’s going to save very much money. Florida’s estimating maybe not quite $200 million for the first year and about the same the second year. If you look at just their Medicaid spending in a year on outpatient drugs, it’s like $1.-something billion. So you can see how tiny a savings that is.

Rovner: Yes. This is one of those things that’s not been partisan. It’s always been sort of the FDA wanting to protect the integrity of the supply chain, whether it’s controlled by Democrats or Republicans versus Democrats and Republicans who would like to find a way to help their constituents get cheaper drugs.

Luhby: One thing also to note that’s going to be interesting, because there’ve been so many people involved in this, we saw Ron DeSantis say yesterday at the debate that he took credit for pushing the federal government and beating the federal government, I think he said, to be allowed to import drugs. But this is also going to be a talking point that Trump and Biden will also be able to say on the campaign. So basically, everyone is probably going to try to take credit for this.

Rovner: Right. Everybody’s going to take credit for something that’s probably only going to happen in a very small way, if it happens at all.

Luhby: If it all happens at all.

Rovner: That’s right. Well, also this week, drug maker Eli Lilly said it is setting up its own telehealth service to help patients access not only its soon-to-be blockbuster weight loss drug Zepbound but also other diabetes and migraine drugs, basically cutting out the doctor or at least cutting out the patient’s regular doctor, if they have one. Sarah, this feels to me like a really big sea change. Is the FDA going to let this happen? Is the AMA going to let this happen?

Karlin-Smith: It’s really interesting. I think the first headline of it makes it seem a little bit more extreme or maybe novel than once you actually look into the details because Lilly’s …

Rovner: Kind of like drug importation.

Karlin-Smith: Right. Although I think more patients maybe will actually be served by this program. But, basically, Eli Lilly is setting up a website that will then connect patients to outside telehealth companies that have the ability to prescribe the drug. Again, these telehealth companies are supposedly prescribing all different drugs, not just Eli Lilly products. The doctor’s supposed to make sure you actually qualify for the product, and so forth. And then Lilly also seems to have developed partnerships with a couple online pharmacy companies that could then directly mail you the product. So Eli Lilly is sort of helping facilitate these connections for patients. But I think probably to avoid various scrutinies by the federal government, they’ve tried to disconnect themselves a few steps, but certainly make the process of getting a drug and their drug easier for patients. Also helping ease the process of getting any copay support or coupons the company offers. So they seem to be kind of taking advantage of a trend that we’ve seen in other areas, with ADHD, like male sexual health products, and so forth, of people wanting to do this through telehealth. And so they’re trying to, I think, get at least a cut of it or at least help steer their product there. But there’s definitely going to be questions, I think, around how you handle advertising and other things for the government to look at.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s definitely a space that, now, we’re going to have to start watching as well as everything else. All right. Well, now it is time for “This Week in Health Misinformation,” which is going to Olympic gold medalist gymnast Mary Lou Retton. Retton, who is now in her mid-50s, contracted a rare form of pneumonia, ended up in the hospital for a month, and became the subject of a crowdfunding effort launched by her daughter because she didn’t have health insurance. Retton, who has been very closed-mouthed about her illness and what happened to the half a million dollars the crowdfunding campaign raised, as is her right, did do an interview this week with the “Today” show on NBC in which she said she couldn’t afford health insurance because her preexisting conditions made it too expensive. For the record, if you’re uninsured, you can still sign up for an Affordable Care Act Plan in most states, and you can’t be charged more due to preexisting conditions. And there are still extra subsidies that we talked about earlier that were implemented during covid that makes insurance even more affordable. Why is it that people don’t know this yet?

Ollstein: Well, as we saw with record-breaking enrollment, a lot of people do know it, but the people who don’t are still loud.

Rovner: We’re 10 years into the ACA!

Ollstein: Yes. It’s funny. I mean, living in D.C. and doing this work, I always try to think about what of all of our reporting actually breaks through around the country. And it’s always interesting to see what does and what doesn’t.

Rovner: I used to stomp around the NPR newsroom when the ACA was just getting up and running, saying, “It is not my job to do the administration’s publicity. It’s really not my job.” But …

Luhby: Yeah.

Rovner: … they are still working on it.

Luhby: It also may be selective ignorance, because I’m sure if she actually asked anyone about health insurance or called any agent or insurer and said, “Well, I have this preexisting condition,” they may have said, “Well, on the ACA, it doesn’t matter anymore.”

Rovner: Yes. And that if she said she didn’t have the money after her divorce, it’s like those are the people who are eligible for big subsidies. All right. Well, that is this week’s news. Now, we will play my interview with AMA President Jesse Ehrenfeld, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast, in person here in our D.C. studio, Dr. Jesse Ehrenfeld, president of the American Medical Association. Dr. Ehrenfeld is an anesthesiologist, medical school professor, researcher on medical information technology, and director of a statewide health philanthropy in Wisconsin, among other activities. He’s an Afghanistan combat veteran twice over, as well as the first openly gay president of the AMA and a national advocate for LGBTQ+ rights. Dr. Ehrenfeld, thank you so much for coming in. You are a very busy person.

Jesse Ehrenfeld: Well, thanks for having me. It’s great to talk to you today.

Rovner: So I want to start on Capitol Hill, since we’re here in D.C.

Ehrenfeld: Sure.

Rovner: And Congress is coming back and working on a budget, or so we hear.

Ehrenfeld: We hope they’re working.

Rovner: I know physicians are facing, again, a cut in Medicare pay, but that’s not the only AMA priority here in Washington at the moment, right?

Ehrenfeld: Well, it’s a big one for us. And, you know, it’s really painful that you turn the clock back, Jan. 1, and 3.37% Medicare cut to physician payments. It’s unconscionable. And so we’re optimistic that we can get a fix, hopefully retroactive, as the omnibus consolidation work goes forward, short of this Jan. 19 deadline coming up. But we can’t have it. Physicians continue to struggle. My parents lost their own primary care physician because of a challenge with their primary care doctor not being able to take Medicare anymore. And what we’re seeing is more and more doctors just stopping seeing new Medicare patients, or opting out of the program entirely. So, every other provider under Medicare is actually fighting for how many increase they’re getting while doctors are getting cut. So we’re hopeful that we can solve this, but it really is something that’s just urgent for us as an association.

Rovner: I thought we took care of this in 2015. I feel like it’s Groundhog Day. I covered it every year from about 2003 to about 2015, and then we solved it briefly.

Ehrenfeld: We solved one problem and replaced it with another, unfortunately. And the doomed SGR did die in 2015 — the unsustainable “sustainable growth rate” problem — that did lead to those year-end patches. And, unfortunately now, though, because of budget neutrality rules and other — we’ll call them “features” — of the program, we’re in the situation again. We do have optimism, though, that we might get some standing inflationary updates. There was the introduction of a bill last session. And we hope that that can be something that does move forward once we get through this time-sensitive issue to deal with the 3.37% cut.

Rovner: So I feel like the physician shortage is kind of like climate change. People have been warning about it for decades, and suddenly it’s here.

Ehrenfeld: It’s here.

Rovner: With people having to wait weeks or sometimes months to see a doctor. Obviously, like with climate change, it’s going to take a while to get out of the hole that we have dug. I know we’ve seen the establishment of several new medical schools, both allopathic and osteopathic, in the past decade. How soon might we be able to see some relief, and what more will it take beyond training more doctors?

Ehrenfeld: Well, we’re opening more medical schools, but we’re not actually training more doctors. And that’s the problem. We haven’t expanded GME [Graduate Medical Education] residency programs. And unfortunately, because, as you know, GME funding through the federal government is tied to a fixed cap, set in the 1990s by Medicare, we’ve opened all these new schools and the students don’t have a place to go to train. So that’s a problem that we need to solve. We’ve had a little tiny, tiny increase these past few years, a couple of hundred spots here and there. We need thousands more training spots open. We need the GME dollars to come from Medicare. We also need to solve some of the issues around how we get international medical graduates here and ready to practice in the U.S. Twenty-five percent of practicing physicians in the U.S. were trained abroad. Most people don’t know that. We already have a huge international workforce, but we do silly things, like we’ll let an international doctor train their residency here, and then we make them go away for two years to their home country before they can come back. There are H-1B visa waiver bills that are circulating around the Conrad 30 extension. We need to do those things as well. Unfortunately, as you’re aware, immigration reform is a challenging issue here in Washington. But there are commonsense solutions that have bipartisan support. And we’re hopeful that we can get some workforce pressure reductions, not just by expanding GME for U.S.-trained individuals, but also those international graduates.

Rovner: Yeah, I feel like people forget that immigration is about more than just people coming across the southern border. There are a lot of skilled-worker issues in the immigration debate.

Ehrenfeld: In lots of industries, health care, technology, other places as well.

Rovner: I know the rise — or should I say the “re-rise” — of prior authorization requirements from insurance companies is something that contributes to physician burnout and the physician shortage by driving doctors out of practice, just from frustration. The Biden administration has a new regulation to limit prior authorization in the pipeline. Assuming that that regulation is finalized soon, how close will that come to fully addressing the problem for your members?

Ehrenfeld: You know, we hope it’ll move the needle a little bit, but we need wholesale reform, and we need to do more than Medicare Advantage plans. Unfortunately, I hear every week from colleagues who are just at their wits’ end, and it’s frustrating. I see it with my own parents. I’m an anesthesiologist. I have a habit now, I ask my patients: “So how long did it take your surgery to get scheduled?” Eh, it’s a couple weeks or a month. I said, “And how long did it take for your insurance company to approve the procedure?” And it’s months. And often what they tell me is they approved it, and then they denied it after they approved it. And they have to go through all of this rigmarole that just doesn’t make sense.

Rovner: You think that Congress is going to need to step in at some point, or is this something that can be worked out?

Ehrenfeld: I think we’re going to have to have regulatory relief from Congress, and we’re pushing for that through our grassroots network. Certainly, we try to bring all the third-party payers together. We have a set of principles that, theoretically, third-party payers have agreed to, and yet they ignore them, and they continue to just harass patients, really to improve their bottom line, but not doing what’s in their best interests.

Rovner: So I want to talk a little bit about physician autonomy. Since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, we’ve seen an increasing level of what I call legislators practicing medicine. Now we have the Supreme Court …

Ehrenfeld: It’s OK if they have an MD.

Rovner: [laughs] That’s true. Now we have the Supreme Court — none of whom have an MD as far as I know — about to decide whether doctors facing women with pregnancy emergencies should obey state abortion bans, the federal EMTALA law, or their medical ethics, all of which may conflict. What’s the AMA doing to help doctors navigate these very choppy and changing legal waters?

Ehrenfeld: “Choppy” is a good word for it. It’s confusing. And since the decision, the Dobbs decision, came out, we have been working with all of our state and federation partners to try to help physicians navigate this. And I can tell you, it’s unbelievable that now physicians are having to call their attorneys, the hospital legal counsel to figure out what they can and can’t do. And obviously, this is not a picture that is a picture that supports women’s health. So we are optimistic that we might get a positive ruling with this EMTALA decision on the Supreme Court. But, obviously, there’s a long way that we need to go to make sure that we can maintain access for reproductive care.

Rovner: You’re younger than I am, but when I was growing up and covering this, the AMA didn’t want to talk about abortion because it was controversial. And now, certainly in the last five or 10 years, the AMA has come out. Do you think that’s something that has dawned on the rest of the members of the AMA that this is not necessarily about abortion, this is about the ability to practice medicine?

Ehrenfeld: Well, you know, look, if you look at some of these socially charged restrictive laws, whether it’s in transgender health or abortion access, or other items, we take the same foundational approach, which is that physicians and patients ought to be making their health care decisions without legislative interference.

Rovner: So it’s not just abortion and reproductive health where lawmakers are trying to dictate medical practice but also care for transgender kids and adults and even treatment for covid and other infectious diseases. How big a priority is this for the AMA, and what are you doing to fight the sort of “pushing against” scientific discourse?

Ehrenfeld: Well, we will always stand up for science. And it’s so important that as an association we do that. Our foundation in 1847 was to get rid of quackery and snake oil salesmen in medicine. And yet here we are trying to do some of those same things with misinformation, disinformation. And obviously, even if you look at the attack on PrEP, preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention — you know, an important part of the Affordable Care Act, right? Making it basically zero out-of-pocket cost for many Americans — those things are just unconscionable. We have treatments. We know that they work. We ought to make sure that patients and their physicians can have access to them.

Rovner: What about doctors who are pushing things that you know to be not helpful?

Ehrenfeld: We call them out, and we would encourage others to call them out. If somebody is trying to sell something that’s inappropriate or do something that doesn’t follow the evidence, we need to call it for what it is, which is inappropriate.

Rovner: It’s not just legislators who want to practice medicine these days. We also have the rise of artificial intelligence, which I know promises both huge advances …

Ehrenfeld: I’m real, by the way.

Rovner: [both laugh] Yes, I can attest that you’re real. At least you seem real. But, obviously, our artificial intelligence can portend huge advances and also other issues, not all of which are good. How is the AMA trying to push the AMA more towards the former, the good things, and less towards the latter, the unintended consequences?

Ehrenfeld: Well, we’re really excited about it. I’m excited about it. I have an informatics background. So, you know, I believe that there is so much power that these technologies and tools can bring, but we need to make sure that the technology is an asset, not a burden. And we have all lived through the painful rollout of electronic health records where that just was not the case. So we did survey — we do routine surveys, data that’s a nationally representative sample — in August of this year, it’s on our website. An equal number of physicians are excited about AI as they are terrified about AI, anxious, concerned, right? And we need to make sure that we have the right regulatory framework. We’re very appreciative of the ONC [Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology] rule that came out, out of HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services], at the end of last year. Certainly, the Biden administration’s, whole of government’s approach we think is important, but that is no substitution for regulation. And we need to make sure that we have appropriate regulation. The FDA doesn’t have the framework that they need. The system set up in the ’60s and ’70s for drugs and biologics and devices hasn’t held up. So we know that there have to be changes. We just need to make sure that those changes only let safe and effective algorithms, AI tools, AI-powered products come to the marketplace.

Rovner: Dr. Ehrenfeld, that’s all the time we have. Thank you so much for joining us.

Ehrenfeld: Oh, thanks for having me. It’s been a treat.

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. Tami, why don’t you go first this week?

Luhby: OK. Well, my extra credit is titled “Most People Dropped in Medicaid ‘Unwinding’ Never Tried to Renew Coverage, Utah Finds,” by KFF Health News’ Phil Galewitz. And as many of our podcast listeners know, states are reviewing the eligibility of their residents in Medicaid and terminating the coverage of those they deem ineligible. Roughly 14.4 million people have been disenrolled. And the big question is, what has happened to them? Did they return to Medicaid? Did they find coverage elsewhere, or did they become uninsured? And that’s the question that many actually Medicaid directors have been unable to answer.

So Phil’s story looks at a first-of-its-kind study conducted in October by Utah’s Medicaid agency. And in Utah, 94% of those disenrolled were dropped for procedural reasons, such as not returning their paperwork, rather than being deemed ineligible. And the study found that 57% of respondents did not attempt to renew their Medicaid coverage. Thirty-nine percent shifted to employer plans, and 15% signed up for Affordable Care Act coverage. So they remained insured, but 30% became uninsured. The story also shows that many Medicaid enrollees said that they had trouble reapplying for Medicaid coverage. They didn’t get the documents. They didn’t have the necessary paperwork. They couldn’t get their questions answered. And these are all things that we’ve heard about anecdotally, but the Utah study and Phil’s story actually put some numbers to it. And interestingly, Utah officials also confirmed that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is conducting two audits of the state’s Medicaid unwinding. So we’ll see what happens and what we find out from Utah may inform us about what’s happening in the rest of the country.

Rovner: Yes, we have noted before that HHS has been very close-mouthed about how it is trying to get states to maintain coverage for these people who are, if not eligible for Medicaid anymore, eligible for something else. Alice, you have kind of a related story, so why don’t you go next?

Ollstein: Yeah, I have something from our own Rachel Cohrs at Stat. It’s called “Texas Taxpayers Wanted to Help the Poor Get Health Care. Instead They’re Funding a Medical School at a Wealthy University.” It’s a great accountability story about how taxpayers were convinced to put up tens of millions of dollars that they thought was going to provide care for very poor people in the area around Austin, Texas. And instead, basically, none of that money is going to … directly to provide that care to people. And instead, it’s gone to build fancy buildings at this medical school, and overhead, and recruiting faculty. And the school and hospital insist that all of this trickles down eventually to patients. But it’s not what taxpayers feel they were promised. And so they’re getting upset about that.

Rovner: It is a very nice medical school. Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: I looked at a New York Times story from Christina Jewett and Benjamin Mueller, “The F.D.A. Warned an Asthma Drug Could Induce Despair. Many Were Never Told,” and it’s about Singulair, a now generic asthma medicine. Over 20 years after it was first approved, FDA added what’s known as its strictest warning, a black box warning, warning of very serious mental health side effects, including suicidal thoughts. And The New York Times investigation seems to have found out that really these messages are not reaching doctors. They’re not reaching patients, or parents, and many young kids who are taking this medicine. And that has led to many ill effects, including some very young people who have died by suicide. And it’s a really good dive into the challenges that FDA faces and kind of translating their regulatory action into something that then gets communicated to a doctor, and then a doctor translates to a patient. In many ways, it’s not that surprising a story to me because I think it’s kind of well known that not a lot of people read drug labels and then certainly not on an individual level, but even on a doctor level. And I think a lot of the risk-benefit conversations that FDA envisions happen between doctors and patients before people take drugs don’t actually happen in the real world. I once actually had a doctor who told me, “This medicine has a box warning, but don’t worry about it.” Which I always find as a pretty funny story as a drug reporter. And it just also raises a lot of issues, this story, about how drugs are studied on children and what’s done to make sure that as a drug goes generic, the safety is still being monitored, and somebody is responsible again for ensuring people are aware of new safety updates. So it’s a really good dive. I think the thing I was most struck by, though, is I think the solutions perhaps here are not ones that would be very popular in the U.S., which is that by design, the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine. And, in most cases, I don’t think Americans would want FDA pushing the boundaries much further to get at the safety hurdles this story maybe flags.

Rovner: Yeah. More along our theme of the federal government and its role in society. Well, my extra credit this week is actually a collection of stories. It’s sparked by the headline on this month’s issue of Consumer Reports, which is “How to Eat Less Plastic.” The first story is from CNN reporting on a study in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences called “Bottled Water Contains Thousands of Nanoplastics So Small They Can Invade the Body’s Cells, Study Says.” And it basically says that plastic sheds just like skin cells do. So anything you eat or drink that’s stored or wrapped in plastic is going to get into whatever it is you’re putting into your body. If that’s not enough to give you pause, my second story is from ScienceAlert, which is a website, called “It Turns Out Paper Straws Might Pose a Serious Problem Too.” And it’s about a study that found that many paper straws contain those forever chemicals we keep hearing about, called PFAS, which, of course, are also in many plastics. Finally, if that’s not enough plastic for you, here’s a story from The Washington Post called “How Plastic Hides in Supposedly Eco-Friendly Laundry Products.” Basically, those laundry sheets that can replace the use of all those plastic bottles that we keep seeing ads for? Apparently, even many of those sheets that claim to be, quote, “plastic-free” contains something called polyvinyl alcohol, which is, you guessed it, a plastic that’s been found in drinking water and breast milk. I think the message here is everything you do is probably bad for you in some way, so be humble and do the best you can.

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, my fellow happy Michigan Wolverine this week, 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, or @julierovner at Bluesky and @julie.rovner at Threads. Sarah, where are you these days?

Karlin-Smith: I’m trying to be places, but then it’s hard to be at all of them. So mostly Twitter and Bluesky, @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith.

Rovner: Tami?

Luhby: The best place to find me is cnn.com.

Rovner: There you go. Alice.

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

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

It’s a new year, but the abortion debate is raging like it’s 2023, with a new federal appeals court ruling that doctors in Texas don’t have to provide abortions in medical emergencies, despite a federal requirement to the contrary. The case, similar to one in Idaho, is almost certainly headed for the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Congress returns to Washington with only days to avert a government shutdown by passing either full-year or temporary spending bills. And with almost no progress toward a spending deal since the last temporary bill passed in November, this time a shutdown might well happen.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Lauren Weber of The Washington Post, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Victoria Knight of Axios.

Panelists

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories.

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefalil

Read Shefali's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• New year, same Congress. It’s likely lawmakers will fall short of their early-year goals to pass necessary spending bills, prompting another government shutdown or yet another short-term extension. And funding for pediatric medical training is among the latest casualties of the clash over gender-affirming care, raising the odds of a political fight over the federal health budget.
• The emergency abortion care decision out of Texas this week underscores the difficult position health care providers are in: Now, a doctor could be brought up on charges in Texas for performing an abortion in a medical emergency — or brought up on federal charges if they abstain.
• A new law in California makes it easier for out-of-state doctors to receive reproductive health training there, a change that could benefit medical residents in the 18 states where it is effectively impossible to be trained to perform an abortion. But some doctors say they still fear breaking another state’s laws.
• Another study raises questions about the quality of care at hospitals purchased by private equity firms, an issue that has drawn the Biden administration’s attention. From the Journal of the American Medical Association, new findings show that those private equity-owned hospitals experienced a 25% increase in adverse patient events from three years before they were purchased to three years after.
• And “This Week in Medical Misinformation”: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earned PolitiFact’s 2023 Lie of the Year designation for his “campaign of conspiracy theories.” The anti-vaccination message he espouses has been around a while, but the movement is gaining political traction — including in statehouses, where more candidates who share RFK Jr.’s views are winning elections.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Sandro Galea, dean of the Boston University School of Public Health, about how public health can regain the public’s trust.

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

Julie Rovner: Politico’s “Why Democrats Can’t Rely on Abortion Ballot Initiatives to Help Them Win,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein, Jessica Piper, and Madison Fernandez.

Lauren Weber: The Washington Post’s “Can the Exhausted, Angry People of Ottawa County Learn to Live Together?” by Greg Jaffe.

Victoria Knight: Politico’s “Georgia Offered Medicaid With a Work Requirement. Few Have Signed Up.” by Megan Messerly and Robert King.

Shefali Luthra: Stat News’ “Medical Marijuana Companies Are Using Pharma’s Sales Tactics With Little of the Same Scrutiny,” by Nicholas Florko.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• Law Dork’s “ADF Is Providing Free Legal Representation to Idaho in Anti-Abortion, Anti-Trans Cases,” by Chris Geidner.
• JAMA Network Open’s “Barriers to Family Building Among Physicians and Medical Students,” by Zoe King, Qiang Zhang, Jane Liang, et al.
• The Journal of the American Medical Association’s “Changes in Hospital Adverse Events and Patient Outcomes Associated With Private Equity Acquisition,” by Sneha Kannan, Joseph Dov Bruch, and Zirui Song.
• KFF Health News’ “RFK Jr.’s Campaign of Conspiracy Theories Is PolitiFact’s 2023 Lie of the Year,” by Madison Czopek, PolitiFact, and Katie Sanders, PolitiFact.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: New Year, Same Abortion Debate

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: New Year, Same Abortion DebateEpisode Number: 328Published: Jan. 4, 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, Happy New Year, 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, Jan. 4, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this, so here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello.

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios News.

Victoria Knight: Hey, everyone.

Rovner: And Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Shefali Luthra: Hello.

Rovner: An entire panel of KFF Health News alums. I’m pretty sure that is a first. Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with Boston University School of Public Health dean Dr. Sandro Galea. He has a new and pretty provocative prescription for how public health can regain public trust. But first, there was plenty of news over the holiday break, in addition to my Michigan Wolverines going to the national championship — sorry, Lauren — plenty of health news, that is. So we shall get to it. We will start on Capitol Hill, where Congress is poised to come back into session — apparently no closer to a deal on the appropriations bills that keep the government open than they were when they left for Christmas, and now it’s only two weeks until the latest continuing resolution ends. Victoria, are we looking at a shutdown again?

Knight: I was texting a lot of people yesterday trying to feel out the vibes. I think a lot of people think a shutdown seems pretty likely. A reminder that we have another member of Congress that is leaving on the Republican side in the House, so now the Republicans can only lose two votes if they’re trying to pass a bill. So when you have House Freedom Caucus members saying, “Hey, we don’t want to agree to any appropriations bills without doing something about the border,” and Democrats unlikely to agree to any border demands that the Freedom Caucus is wanting, it seems like we may be at a standstill. I know there is some reporting this morning that possibly they may just do another fiscal year continuing resolution until …

Rovner: You mean like the last couple of years we’ve done a full-year CR?

Knight: Yeah, exactly. So …

Rovner: The thing they swore they wouldn’t do.

Knight: And [House] Speaker [Mike] Johnson said, he promised he wouldn’t do that, so it’ll be interesting to see how that all plays out. As far as I’ve heard the latest, there’s no top-line funding number, but it does seem like a shutdown may be looming.

Rovner: Well, assuming there is a spending deal at some point, and the fact that 2024 is an election year where not much gets passed, a lot of lawmakers have a lot of things they would like to attach to a moving spending train, assuming there is a moving spending train. What’s the outlook for the bill that we were talking about all of December on PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers] and health transparency and some extensions of some expiring programs That’s still kicking around, right?

Knight: Yeah. That’s definitely still kicking around. So there are some extenders like for community health centers and averting some cuts to safety-net hospitals. Those are really high priority for lawmakers. I think those will make their way onto any kind of deal most likely. What seems more up in the air is the transparency measures for PBMs and for hospitals and for insurers. That was the big, as you mentioned, the big pass the House in December. The Senate has introduced their own versions of the bill and there’s talk that maybe some of that could ride onto if there is some kind of funding deal, but it’s also possible that maybe it’s more likely to be punted to the lame duck session. So, post-election, when Republicans are trying in the House and Senate Democrats are trying to do their last hurrah before the new Congress comes in. So we’ll see. Latest I heard yesterday there were some negotiations around the transparency stuff, so it’s still possible, but who knows?

Rovner: Congress is the ultimate college student. They don’t do anything until they have a deadline. Meanwhile, we have yet another health program caught up in the culture wars, this time the Children’s Hospital Graduate Medical Education [Payment] program. Because most medical residencies are funded by Medicare and because Medicare doesn’t have a lot of patients in children’s hospitals, this program was created in 1999 to remedy that. Yes, I covered it at the time. Republicans in the House are happy to reauthorize it or just to fund it through the appropriations process, which keeps the money flowing, but only if it bans funding for children’s hospitals that don’t provide gender-affirming care for transgender minors. It appears that has killed the reauthorization bill that was moving for this year. Is that the kind of thing that could also threaten the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] spending bill?

Knight: Yeah, I mean there are provisions within the HHS bill to ban Medicare, Medicaid paying for gender-affirming care. I don’t know. We haven’t done much debate on the Labor-HHS bill. It’s been the one that’s been put to the side. It hasn’t even gone through the full committee, so we haven’t …

Rovner: In the House, right?

Knight: Yeah, in the House, yes. Yeah. But yeah, I think it’s definitely possible. Just broader picture, this is an issue that Republicans are trying to make a bigger thing that they’re running on in different congressional districts, talking about banning gender-affirming care. So I think even if we don’t see it now, it’s probably something that we’re going to continue seeing.

Rovner: Well, we will obviously talk more as Congress comes back and tries to do things. So new year, same old abortion debate. This week’s big entry is a decision by a panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that EMTALA, the federal law that requires hospitals to at least screen and provide stabilizing care to anyone who presents in their emergency room, does not supersede Texas’ abortion ban. In other words, if a pregnant woman needs an abortion to stabilize her condition, she’d also have to meet one of the exceptions in the Texas abortion ban. Given that we don’t really know what the Texas exceptions are, since we’ve had litigation on that, that could be a tall order, right, Shefali?

Luthra: Yes. Doctors have basically said that the Texas exceptions in the state law are unworkable. And I think it’s worth noting that what EMTALA would require and what is in effect in other states with abortion bans is again very narrow. We are talking about the smallest subset of abortions, the smallest subset of medical emergency abortions, because this doesn’t apply to someone with a fetal anomaly who cannot give birth to a viable child. This doesn’t apply to someone who maybe is undergoing chemotherapy and can’t stay pregnant. This is for people who have situations such as sepsis or preterm premature membrane rupture. These are really, really specific instances, and even then, Texas is arguing and the 5th Circuit says, hospitals don’t have to provide care that would by all accounts be lifesaving.

Rovner: This puts doctors, particularly in Texas, in an untenable situation where if a woman presents, say, with an ectopic pregnancy, which is neither going to produce a live baby and is likely or could definitely kill the woman, if they perform that abortion, they could be brought up on charges in Texas, but if they don’t perform the abortion, they could be brought up on federal charges.

Luthra: And this is the bind that doctors have found themselves in over and over again. And I do want to reiterate that this isn’t actually unique to Texas because even in states where the EMTALA guidance is in effect, doctors and hospitals remain very afraid of coming up against the very onerous abortion penalties that their laws have. I was talking to a physician from Tennessee earlier this week, and she made the point that what your doctor feels safe doing, it comes down to luck in a lot of ways. Which city you happen to live in, which hospital you happen to go to, what the lawyers on that hospital staff happen to think the law says. It’s really untenable for physicians, for hospitals, and more than anyone else for patients.

Rovner: Now, despite Justice [Samuel] Alito’s hope in his Dobbs opinion overturning Roe that the Supreme Court would no longer have to adjudicate this issue, that’s exactly what’s going to happen. There’s already an emergency petition at SCOTUS from Idaho wanting to reverse a 9th Circuit ruling, preventing them from enforcing their abortion ban over EMTALA. In other words, the 9th Circuit basically said, no, we’re going to put this Idaho ban on hold to the extent that it conflicts with EMTALA until it’s all the way through the courts. Not to mention the mifepristone case that could roll back availability of the abortion pill. Is it fair to say that Justice Alito’s reasoning backfired here, or was he being disingenuous when he … did he know this was going to come back to the court?

Luthra: Not one of us can see inside any individual justice’s heart or mind, but I think we can say that anyone who seriously thought that overturning Roe v. Wade, which had been in effect for almost 50 years, would bring up no legal questions to be answered again and again by the courts clearly hadn’t thought this through. I was talking to scholars this week who think that we’ll be spending the next decade answering through the courts all of the new questions that have been instigated by the decision.

Rovner: Yeah, that’s definitely not going to lower their workload. Well, speaking of Idaho, the “Law Dork” blog has an interesting story this week about how the Alliance Defending Freedom — it’s a self-identified Christian law firm that represents mostly anti-abortion and other conservative groups in court — is now providing free representation to the state of Idaho in its effort to keep its state abortion ban in place. ADF is also representing Idaho in a case about bathroom use by transgender people. Now, conservative organizations and states often work together on cases, as do liberal organizations in states, that is not rare. But in this case, ADF is actually representing the state, which poses all kinds of conflicts-of-interest questions, right? Lauren, you’re nodding.

Weber: Yeah, I mean it’s pretty wild to see this kind of overlap. As you pointed out, Julie, it’s not rare for attorney general’s offices to seek outside legal help, that happens all the time. They’re understaffed. There’s a lot of problems they can address. But to fully turn over a case essentially to an ideological group is something different altogether because it also implies that that group is giving a gift to the government. It implies that they may be able to take on more cases because if it’s for free, then who knows? And I want to point out that this group really is at the forefront of many of the battles that we’re seeing play out in health issues legally across the country. I mean, they’re involved in a lot of the gender-affirming care cases and even in dealing with some of the groups that are promoting some of the legislation in places across the country. So this is quite a novel step and something to definitely be on the lookout for as we pay attention to many court cases that are going to play out over the next couple of years.

Rovner: Yeah, this was something I hadn’t really focused on until I saw this story and I was like, “Oh, that is a little bit different from what we’ve seen.” Well, while we were on the subject of doctors and lawsuits and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, a panel there kept alive a case filed by three doctors against the FDA, charging that it overstepped its authority by recommending that doctors not prescribe ivermectin, an anti-parasite drug, for covid. We’ve talked a lot about how the mifepristone case could undermine FDA’s drug approval process. Obviously, if anyone can sue to effectively get a drug approval reversed, this case could basically stop the FDA from telling the public about evidence-based research, couldn’t it?

Weber: This case is quite wild. I mean, as someone that covers misinformation and disinformation and has extensively covered the ivermectin sagas over the last couple of years, the idea that the FDA cannot come out and say, “Look, this drug is not recommended,” it would be a severe restricting of its authority. I mean, government agencies are known to give advice, which does not always have to be neutral. Historically, that is what has been considered just the status quo legally. And so for the court to restrict the FDA’s authority in this way — if this does, it’s obviously still up for appeal, so who knows? But if it were to be successful, essentially everything the FDA ever put out would have to say, “But go talk to your physician,” which would lead to a little bit more of a wild, wild West when it comes to evidence-based medicine as we know it today.

Rovner: Back on the abortion beat, the news isn’t all about bans in California. The new year is bringing several new laws aimed at making abortion easier to access. Shefali, tell us about some of those.

Luthra: California is really interesting because they really position themselves as the antithesis of states banning abortion. And the law that you’re discussing here, Julie, this is part of a real concern that a lot of physicians have, which is that in states with abortion bans, it’ll be harder for medical residents to be trained in appropriate health care. That means providing abortion care. It means providing comprehensive OB-GYN care in general, right? Miscarriage management, you learn how to do that in part by providing abortions. California has implemented a law this year that would try to help more out-of-state doctors come to California to get trained in how to provide this kind of care.

I think where this gets tricky and where doctors I’ve spoken to remain concerned, confused, it’s not a panacea, is the concern about whether any single state in and of itself can do enough to rectify what is happening in 18 states across the country. That’s a very, very tall order, and it comes with other concerns of: Will residents feel safe, able to come to California? Will their institutions want to send them? These are all open questions, and I think this California law, this project that they’re taking on, is incredibly interesting. I think it’ll take some time for us to see both what the impact is and what the kinks and challenges are that emerge along the way.

Rovner: I was also interested in a California law that says that California officials don’t have to cooperate with out-of-state investigations into doctors prescribing abortion pills or gender-affirming care.

Luthra: This is, again, really interesting, and I mean, I think what we are going to see is individual state laws continuing to run up against each other and questions over whose authority applies in what situations. This has come up for doctors constantly, right? The ones who live in states with abortion protections but want to provide care in other states. What happens if they are flying across the country and have a layover in a state with an abortion ban? What happens if they have a medical emergency in a state that they have maybe broken the law of, whose law applies there? These are things that have left a lot of doctors really concerned. I know I’ve spoken to physicians who say that even despite the legal protections in their states, in a state like California for instance, they still don’t feel safe actively breaking another state’s laws. And again, this is just one of those questions we’re going to keep watching and seeing play out. Who ultimately is able to decide what happens and what role would the federal government eventually have to play?

Rovner: I think these were things, these were the kinds of questions that I don’t think the Supreme Court really considered when they overturned Roe. There’s so many ramifications that we just didn’t expect. I mean, there were some that we did, but this seems to be an extent that it’s gone to that was not anticipated.

Luthra: It’s just a whole mess of, if not undesired, then perhaps unanticipated or not fully planned-for questions and concerns that are now emerging.

Rovner: So I wanted to call out a survey in the Journal of the American Medical Association about reproduction more broadly, not about abortion. How hard it is for medical students and young doctors to build families early in their careers — a time when most people are building their families. Medical training takes so long in many cases that women, in particular, may find it much more difficult or impossible to get pregnant if they wait until after their training is done. And the pace of medical care delivery and the patriarchal structure of most medical practice frowns on women doing things like getting pregnant and having babies and trying to raise children. I vividly remember a doctor retreat I spoke at in 2004 when a 30-something OB-GYN said that when she got pregnant, her residency adviser accused her of wasting a residency spot that could have gone to someone who wasn’t going to take time out of their career. I think things have progressed since then, but apparently not all that much, according to this survey.

Luthra: And this, I think, is really interesting because especially after the covid pandemic, we saw obviously, health care workers leave the field in droves. We saw more women leave the field than men. And what that spoke to was, in part, that working through covid was really taxing. Women were more often in positions that were on the front lines, but what it also spoke to is that the culture of medicine has long been very unfriendly toward the family-building burdens that often fall on women, and that hasn’t gotten better. If anything, it’s gotten worse because child care is even harder to come by. Moms, in particular, have way more to juggle and to balance than they once did. And the support, it’s not even fair to say it hasn’t caught up. It was never there to begin with.

Weber: And just to add on that, I mean, I find it — that study is great, and I will say I have family members that struggle with this currently. It’s wild to me that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends a 12-week parental leave, and you possibly couldn’t finish your residency or qualify for a surgery residency if you take more than six weeks. I mean, I think that, in itself, that factoid really says exactly what Shefali was getting at. The culture of medicine is not at all friendly to folks that are considering this whatsoever.

Rovner: There’s so many women in medicine now. Now it’s making a problem not just for the women in medicine, but for everybody who wants medical care. So maybe that will get some attention paid to it. Moving on to “This Week in Private Equity,” we have another study from the Journal of the American Medical Association. It found that hospitals that were bought by private equity firms had a 25% increase in adverse events in the three years following their acquisition. Adverse events include things like falls, hospital-acquired infections, and other harm that, in theory, could or should have been prevented. It’s not really hard to connect the dots here, right? Private equity wants to raise more money, and that tends to want to cut staff, so bad things happen. I see you nodding, Victoria.

Knight: Yeah, I mean, I think this is an ongoing issue. It’s something that the Biden administration has said they want to look into, just decreasing quality of care in places that are taken over by private equity. I’m not sure there’s a really good solution to it at this point in time. And I think it also speaks to the broader issues of consolidation among the health care industry and the business of health care and what that means in regards to quality for patients. But yeah, I think this study is just another piece in building up a case of why sometimes private equity doesn’t always seem to equate to the best care for patients.

Luthra: If we go back in time a little bit, there is more evidence that shows the role that private equity has played in not only reduction in quality of care, but in the opposition between the health care industry and consumers. And the example I’m thinking of is air ambulances and surprise billing by those ER staffing firms, all of which were eventually owned by private equity firms that have their own set of incentives that is at odds with the goal of providing care that people can afford and can access, and that keeps them healthy.

Rovner: Indeed. Well, following “This Week in Private Equity,” we have “This Week in Health Misinformation.” My winner this week is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who was awarded the “Lie of the Year” from PolitiFact for not just his repeated and repeatedly debunked claims about vaccines, but other fanciful conspiracy theories about covid-19, mass shootings, and the rise in gender dysphoria. I will post the link so I don’t have to repeat all of those things here. Which brings us to the story I asked Lauren here to talk about, how the anti-vax movement is quietly gaining a foothold in state houses. Lauren, tell us what you found.

Weber: Well, I found that it’s becoming very politically advantageous, to some extent. Political clout around anti-vaccine movement is growing. So you’re seeing more and more state legislators get elected that have anti-vaccine or vaccine-skeptical views. And I went down to Baton Rouge and 29 folks that were supported by Stanford Health Freedom, which is against vaccine mandates, got elected in this year’s off-cycle elections. So who knows what will happen next year, but you’re already seeing this reflected in other states. In Iowa, legislators this year stopped the requirement that you can talk about the HPV vaccines in schools. In Tennessee, home-schooled kids no longer have vaccine requirements. In Florida, they banned any possible requiring of covid vaccines, which experts said they worry if you just strike “covid” from that, that could lead to the banning of other requirements for vaccines. You’re seeing this momentum grow, and as you mentioned, Julie, RFK Jr. has played a role in this.

As I talk about in my story, back in 2021, he went down to Louisiana and really riled up some anti-vaccine fever in a legislative hearing about the covid vaccine. And so it’s a combination of things. People are reacting to a lot of misinformation that was spread during covid about the covid vaccine. And that distrust of the covid vaccine is seeping into childhood vaccinations. I mean, this year we saw data that came out that said in the 2022-2023 school year, we saw the highest rate of exemption rates for kindergartners getting their vaccinations. That’s a bad trend for the United States when it comes to herd immunity to protect against things like measles or other preventable diseases. So we will see how the next year plays out legislatively, but as it stands right now, I expect to see much more anti-vaccine movement in the statehouses in 2024.

Rovner: I’ve been covering the anti-vax movement for, I don’t know, 25, 30 years. There’s always been an anti-vax movement. It’s actually this combination of people on the far left and people on the far right, they tend to both be anti-vax, but I think this is the first time we’ve really seen it come into actual legislating way. In fact, the trend over the last couple of years has been to get rid of things like religious exemptions for families getting their children vaccinated in order to attend public school. So now we’re expecting to see the reverse, right?

Weber: Yeah, as you said, this is a horseshoe political issue that it’s been far left, far right, but now it’s really seeped into the far-right conservative consciousness in a way that has become a political advantage for some candidates. And so you’re seeing stuff that would previously be, not even make it to the floor for a vote, have to be vetoed, make it out of a committee, where previously some of these things would’ve looked at the signs and said, this is just not true. Now there’s more political power behind the ideology of some of these anti-mandate freedom pushes. So it’s really going to be something to track in this upcoming year.

Rovner: I think the other trend we’re seeing is actual health officials talking about these kinds of things, led by the Florida Surgeon General, Dr. [Joseph] Ladapo. He’s now moved on beyond recommending that young men not get the covid vaccine, right?

Weber: Yeah. So yesterday he sent out a health bulletin, and I just want to take a step back to say this is incredibly unprecedented because this is a state health officer sending out a bulletin to the state saying that he does not recommend anyone … he wants to halt the use of mRNA covid vaccinations. Now, that is not a position that any other state health officer has taken. It’s not a position that any national health agency has taken. He made it based on claims that have been debunked. He primarily based it on a study that several of the experts I talked to said it is not one that they would base assumptions on.

His claims were implausible, but needless to say, I mean, he’s the health director for the third-largest state in the union. I mean, his words carry weight, and his political patron is Ron DeSantis. Now, DeSantis has not commented publicly yet on this, but oftentimes it seems that they both have worked hand in hand to fight against vaccine mandates and to cause a ruckus around things like this. So it needs to be seen the politicization of this as this continues to play out.

Rovner: Well, that is a wonderful segue into our interview this week with Dr. Sandro Galea about the future of public health. So we will play that now and then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast Dr. Sandro Galea, dean of the Boston University School of Public Health. Longtime listeners will know I’ve been concerned about the state of public health since even before the pandemic. Dr. Galea has a new book of essays called “Within Reason: A Liberal Public Health for an Illiberal Time” that takes a pretty provocative look at what’s gone wrong for public health and how it might win back the support of the actual public. Dr. Galea, thank you so much for joining us.

Sandro Galea: Thank you for having me.

Rovner: So I want to start with your diagnosis of what it is that ails public health in 2024.

Galea: Well, I suppose I start from the data, and the data show that there is a tremendous loss of trust in science broadly, in public health more specifically. Data from Pew that came out just a few months ago show, really, a 25-point drop in trust in medicine and in health from before the pandemic. So the question becomes why is that? What’s going on? And what I try to do in the book is to identify a number of things that I think have really hurt us, and I could numerate those. No. 1, it is we took a very narrow approach to our perception of what should have been done without leaving space for a plurality of voices that weigh different inputs differently.

No. 2, that through the mediation of social media as a way of extending our voice, we were perhaps inhabited false certitude much more than we ever meant to or much more than we do when we think about our science. And No. 3, we allowed ourselves to become politicized in a way that’s unhealthy. Perhaps partisanized is an even better term because public health is always political, but we allowed ourselves to become blue versus red, and that doesn’t serve anybody because public health should be there to serve the whole public. And I think those three big buckets, obviously in the book I write about them in much more detail, but I think they capture the fundamental problems that then have resulted in this loss of trust we face right now.

Rovner: So I’ve had experts note that the lack of public trust in public health isn’t necessarily because of anything the public health community has done. It’s because of a broader pushback against elites and people in power of all kinds. Do you think that’s the case, or has public health also contributed to its own, I won’t say downfall, but lack of status?

Galea: I feel like the answer to that is “and,” meaning that, yes, there’s no question that there are forces that have tried to undermine public health, forces that tried to undermine science. And in the book, I’m very clear that I do realize there are outside forces that have had mal intent, that they have not acted in good faith and they have tried to undermine public health and science, but that’s not what the book is about. I say that is there, I recognize it’s there, but I wanted to write about public health from within public health. It would be shortsighted of us not to realize that we are contributing to how public perceives us. In many respects, I feel like we should have the agency and the confidence to say, well, there are things that we are doing that we should look at. And now, after the acute phase of the pandemic, is the time to look at that.

I was clear in my other writing that I did not write this book in 2021 or 2022 intentionally, because it was too close. But I feel like now that we’re over the acute phase of the pandemic, now is the time to ask hard questions and to say, “What should we be learning?” And I do that in the book, very much looking forward. I’m not naming names, I’m not pointing fingers. All I’m simply saying is we now have the benefit of time passing. Let us see what we should have done better so we can learn how to be better in future.

Rovner: One of the things I think that frustrated me as a journalist, as somebody who communicates to a lay audience for a living, is that public health and science in general during the pandemic seemed unable to say that yes, as we learn more, we’re going to change what we recommend. It becomes, to the public, well, they said this and now they’re saying that, so they were wrong. Does public health need to show its work more?

Galea: This is the term that I use, which is false certitude, which is that we conveyed confidence when we should not have conveyed confidence. Now, there are many reasons for that. Things were happening quickly. It was a fast-moving pandemic. Everybody was scared. And, also, our communication was mediated through social media, which was a new medium for communication of public health. And that does not leave space for the asterisk, for the caveat. And I think our mistake was not recognizing how much harm it was going to do and not being upfront about this is what we know today, but tomorrow we may know more, and we may then have to change our recommendations. And as one pauses and thinks about how should we do better, surely this is front and center to learn how to communicate by saying, “Today, based on what we know, this is what we think is best, but we reserve the right to come back tomorrow and be clear, tell you that the data have changed, hence the recommendations have changed.”

Rovner: Do you think public health has been slow to embrace things like social media? I mean, there are organizations on social media. I think one that comes to mind is the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the National Park Service. I mean that they’re very cheeky, but they get out really important information in a very quick and understandable way. Is that something that public health needs to be doing better?

Galea: Perhaps. I’m not sure I’m willing to say that public health is any worse than the National Park Service on social media. I think we are all, as a society, struggling with communicating important facts rapidly in a time of crisis. One analogy, which I use in the book, is the analogy to 9/11, meaning in 9/11, it was the first national crisis that was lived through in a time of 24/7 cable news. And as a result, there was a lot of noise on cable news that was happening that was distorting how we dealt with the event. Similarly, covid-19 was the first national crisis that was lived through the lens of social media, and we did not really know how to use it. So, at the same time as I’m labeling this as a real challenge that public health faced, I’m also trying to understand and have the compassion to realize that in public health we were struggling to learn how to do this as everybody else was.

Rovner: So let’s turn to the future. What should public health do first to try and regain some of the trust that it’s lost?

Galea: Well, I suppose first we should be having this conversation, and I’m grateful to you for having a conversation, but I actually mean that, at a large scale, I actually think that I meant my book to be a place marker. And I say in it clearly, I expect people will disagree with elements of the book, and that’s OK. And I hope that the book encourages others to write their books that talks about the things, how they see it. Because I do think that this conversation should open up space for public health to say, what are the things that we didn’t do well? What are the things that we should do better? Because from that is going to emerge a new consensus about how we should act.

If the only thing that emerges is simply this, what you and I just talked about, which is communicating with due humility, recognizing the complexity of rapidly evolving facts, and being clear with the population that things may change. If that’s the only thing that emerges, we’ve already made progress. So I think the first thing that should happen is having the conversation, opening this up, being honest that there are things that public health did that it should do better. That is going to lead us to a new consensus about how we should do better.

Rovner: And beyond the conversation, is there one thing that you wish that policymakers could do that could help public health regain its prominence and its trust? I mean, there really is no other word here.

Galea: I think the one thing that I would want to see in policy is a moving away from abolishing of the notion that we can “follow the science.” One of my least favorite things that happened during the pandemic was this notion that we could “follow the science.” Now, why do I say that? I’m a scientist! But I say that because “follow the science” implies that science leads to linear answers, to linear solutions. And that phrase, “follow the science,” became a fig leaf for policymakers, saying, “Well, the science says we should do X, therefore we’re going to do X.” That is simply false. Policymaking should rest on multiple inputs, science being one of them, but also values, but also the importance of other sectors of the economy.

And I would like us to see as a society being honest about that, that policymaking shouldn’t take science into account centrally. I agree with that. As I said, it’s my bread and butter, it’s what I do. But to pretend that science has the answer is simply wrong. We elect people in elected positions, and there are people who are appointed in decision-making positions in other circumstances. It is their job to weigh all the inputs, science being one of those inputs.

Rovner: Well, Dr. Galea, thank you so much. I will do my part to keep the conversation going. I’m sure you will do yours as well.

Galea: I will. And thank you for doing the part you’re doing.

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

Luthra: Sure. My story is from Stat by Nicholas Florko. The headline is “Medical Marijuana Companies Are Using Pharma’s Sales Tactics With Little of the Same Scrutiny.” And I think this is such a smart investigation, and I’m so grateful that Nicholas wrote it. It really gets into the fact that medical marijuana is a tremendous industry now, right? It’s not just in the Colorados or the Californias or Massachusetts that you think of. It’s all over the country and it’s a huge business. And because it’s so new, it hasn’t gotten the same scrutiny in terms of how it markets its products to consumers, the relationship it has with providers, et cetera. I think this is just a really important topic, and it’s something that we should all be paying attention to as the industry continues to grow in the coming years.

Rovner: Indeed. Victoria?

Knight: Yeah. So my extra credit this week is a Politico story by Megan Messerly and Robert King titled “Georgia Offered Medicaid With a Work Requirement. Few Have Signed Up.” And so it’s talking about just the rollout of Georgia implementing a work requirement for their Medicaid program, which they did expand Medicaid, but they included a work requirement. So I thought this was just really stunning. It said through the first four months, only 1,800 people have enrolled when the governor, Brian Kemp, expected 31,000 people to sign up.

Rovner: Contrast that with North Carolina, which expanded Medicaid without the work requirement and got, like, 200,000 people to sign up.

Knight: Yeah. So that’s just a stunning number. And they’re talking about in the story there. They’re not sure why all the reasons are, but part of it is that there is a lot of paperwork involved. And so I think it was just a really interesting example. Obviously, we have seen work requirements play out before, but we haven’t seen it in a while. And so it’s interesting to see how difficult it can be for people to access Medicaid if this is put in place. And I also think it’s important to remind people that last year, in 2023, during the debt ceiling debate, Republicans did for a while talk about wanting to implement work requirements in Medicaid again. And so, if this was something that they put into place, it would mean probably a lot of people would drop off the rolls. So it’s an idea that resurfaces. So just important to remember that.

Rovner: Indeed. Lauren.

Weber: I was obsessed with Greg Jaffe story from The Washington Post titled “Can the Exhausted, Angry People of Ottawa County Learn to Live Together?” And it’s this incredible portrait of this Michigan county where the county public health officer, Adeline Hambley, has come under tremendous pressure and threat from the conservative county board. And this is a story we have seen play out in different iterations all around the country in the wake of covid. It’s the “we don’t believe in masks, we don’t believe in shutdowns” versus the county public health folks who are trying to follow the science and how does that play out at a people level, which Greg just does a fantastic way of showing. And it’s interesting, the board was so fed up with her and making such political statements that they offered her $4 million to quit. Now this fell apart because the county doesn’t seem to have the money that would affect them, et cetera.

But it just goes to show how deep the divisions are between what used to be a very non-politicized, normal government job of being a public health officer who keeps your water safe and tries to keep you from catching bad diseases at restaurants, to the post-covid era, where [they’re] just absolutely vilified and hated, really, it seems in some of these comments in the story — so much so that they would be paid this much money to quit. So I think this speaks a lot to the tension that we see in America around public health today, and I really recommend everybody to give it a read.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a really remarkable story. Well, my extra credit this week is from our podcast pal Alice [Miranda] Ollstein, along with her colleagues Jessica Piper and Madison Fernandez at Politico. It’s called Why Democrats Can’t Rely on Abortion Ballot Initiatives to Help Them Win.” And it’s a warning for Democrats not to get too smug about the popularity and success of abortion rights ballot measures around the country. They dug into the numbers and found that in many of those states, the very same voters who supported the abortion rights measures also turned around and voted for Republican candidates. As usual, in politics, things are rarely as simple as they seem.

All right, that is our show for this first week of 2024. 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, my fellow Wolverine, 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, or @julierovner at Bluesky and @julie.rovner at Threads. Shefali, where are you these days?

Luthra: I am @shefalil on X and Blue Sky, and then on Threads, I’m @shefali.luthra.

Rovner: Victoria.

Knight: I’m @victoriaregisk on X and Threads.

Luthra: Lauren.

Weber: And then I’m @LaurenWeberHP on X and clearly still need to work on my social media game.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

The Supreme Court this week agreed to hear a case that could further restrict abortion — even in states where it remains legal. The case to determine the fate of the abortion pill mifepristone is the first major abortion case to come before the court since its overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022. It could also set a precedent for judges to second-guess scientific rulings by the FDA.

Meanwhile, legislation is finally moving in the House and Senate to renew a long list of health programs that technically expired at the end of the last fiscal year, on Sept. 30. But the bills to fund community health centers and build on programs to fight the opioid epidemic are unlikely to become law until January, at the soonest.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Riley Griffin of Bloomberg News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Riley Griffin
Bloomberg

@rileyraygriffin

Read Riley's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Supreme Court will consider a case challenging access to mifepristone, opting to review FDA decisions in recent years governing the loosening some requirements for distribution and use of the so-called abortion pill — such as the agency’s call allowing pregnant people to obtain the drug without a doctor’s visit. While the drug’s overall approval is not in question in this case, the drug industry argues undermining the FDA’s authority could open the floodgates for challenges to other pharmaceuticals and have a chilling effect on drug development.
• Legal experts say the Texas high court’s ruling blocking the abortion of a pregnant woman whose fetus has a fatal condition calls into question whether doctors are able to identify any medically necessary circumstance under existing legal exceptions. And, in other court news, the Supreme Court will let stand a Washington state law banning conversion therapy.
• On Capitol Hill, lawmakers are bundling an assortment of bipartisan, generally unrelated health measures so they can be approved, possibly as part of a government spending package in January. But can this Congress — which has proved unproductive even by recent standards — finish its work in a presidential election year?
• One piece of legislation under consideration would address the opioid epidemic, renewing grants for state efforts to prevent and treat opioid use disorder. The epidemic has taken a toll, but it is not the only problem contributing to a troubling drop in U.S. life expectancy.
• And cyberattacks are on the upswing in health care, with new revelations about an attack that targeted the Department of Health and Human Services at the onset of the pandemic.

Also this week, Rovner interviews University of Maryland professor and social media superstar Jen Golbeck about her new book, “The Purest Bond,” which lays out the science of the human-canine relationship.

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 “They Watched Their Husbands Win the Heisman — Then Lost Them to CTE,” by Kent Babb.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “A Deadly Delivery Highlights ‘Falsified’ Heat Records at USPS,” by Ariel Wittenberg.

Lauren Weber: The Washington Post’s “Applesauce Lead Cases in Kids Surge Amid Questions on FDA Oversight,” by Amanda Morris, Teddy Amenabar, Laura Reiley, and Jenna Portnoy.

Riley Griffin: Bloomberg News’ “The Next Blockbuster Drug Might Be Made in Space,” by Robert Langreth.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• The American Prospect’s “The Life-and-Death Cost of Conservative Power,” by Paul Starr.
• Bloomberg Businessweek’s “The Untold Story of a Massive Hack at HHS in Covid’s Early Days,” by Jordan Robertson and Riley Griffin.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Abortion and SCOTUS, Together Again

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Abortion and SCOTUS, Together AgainEpisode Number: 326Published: Dec. 14, 2023

[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, Dec. 14, 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 video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Rovner: Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello.

Rovner: And we welcome to the podcast for the first time Riley Griffin of Bloomberg News.

Riley Griffin: Thanks for having me.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with University of Maryland professor Jen Golbeck, who is probably better known to anyone on social media as “GR Mom,” the woman who takes in half a dozen special-needs golden retrievers at a time. She’s co-author of a new book called “The Purest Bond” that explains why our love for dogs is not just all in our heads. But first, this week’s news.

We will start with abortion this week. In news, Alice, that you anticipated last week, the Supreme Court has decided to hear a case out of Texas regarding the abortion pill mifepristone. Depending on how the court rules, it could make abortion less available even in states where it remains legal. But Alice, this might not be as consequential as it looks at first blush because they didn’t take the case that could have impacted the overall approval of the drug, right?

Ollstein: That’s right. So they’re basically taking up what the 5th Circuit decided, not what the district court decided. The district court, as we remember very dramatically, decided that FDA approval of mifepristone decades ago was done incorrectly and would have moved to effectively ban the drug nationwide. What’s at issue before the Supreme Court are subsequent FDA decisions to make the pill more easily accessible, but those are really important and sweeping. I mean, I feel like the mail delivery piece is getting a lot of attention, but it’s not just that.

These are decisions that, one, approved a generic version of the pill, which made it cheaper and more accessible all over the country. It expanded its use from just the first seven weeks of pregnancy to the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. Those crucial weeks are when a lot of people realize they’re pregnant and make a decision about that. And more recently, allowing retail pharmacies to dispense the pills and, crucially, not requiring an in-person doctor visit to obtain them.

So the companies that make the pills say that if the Supreme Court were to side with the groups challenging these rules, it would be a de facto ban, at least temporarily, while they have to go through relabeling and retooling and everything. And that could take a while. So I think while abortion rights groups are celebrating that the overall approval of the pills is not in question, this is still very, very consequential, and it’s going to be decided just months before the presidential election, keeping this really front and center in people’s minds.

Rovner: Just to confirm though, the Supreme Court has already weighed in and put even what the 5th Circuit did on hold, right?

Ollstein: Yes.

Rovner: So nothing has changed at the moment from what’s originally available.

Ollstein: That’s right. And so in states that have their own bans, the bills are still banned. In states where they’re protected, they’re still protected, and that will continue until the high court hears and rules on the case.

Rovner: But even though, I mean, the court is not going to take up the case where the lower-court judge said that the FDA shouldn’t have approved this in the first place, this could still be the Supreme Court basically overruling FDA’s judgment about what’s safe and effective, which could have big implications for drugs way beyond mifepristone, right?

Ollstein: That’s what the companies that make the pills and other unrelated pharmaceutical companies have been arguing. They say that this could open the floodgates for anyone with a grievance against any drug to try to challenge it. People are worried about contraception. People are worried about covid shots. Anything that’s generated any level of pushback and controversy, that would greenlight this strategy for them.

And the pharmaceutical industry has also argued that it could put a chilling effect on companies even submitting new drugs for approval, saying, if they don’t have the confidence that a court could come in later and yank away the approval, why would they feel confident in putting this out on the market? So this has the potential to be really disruptive. And I would note it comes at a time when the Supreme Court is overall really questioning deference to federal agency decisions across the board, anything from the Commerce Department to … there was a case about phishing regulations. And so, overall, it’s this “war on the administrative state” effort and this is definitely a piece of it, and it could affect health care in a lot of ways.

Rovner: Riley, you watch the drug industry. First, they were staying out of it, and then they finally decided, oh, we should get a little bit exercise because this could be important. Where are they these days?

Griffin: I think what’s been so novel for me situated here in D.C. is to watch industry lobby conservatives on this agenda. To say, this is about business interests. And if you break this house of cards, what else is going to come crashing down? So Alice made that point, and it’s a really important one. The implications here are far-reaching. And in questioning the FDA’s authority in this space, you are really going so much further, and it calls into question other drugs.

Rovner: So great, we’ll have something to talk about for weeks and weeks to come. Well, still in Texas — why does it seem that all the abortion news comes out of Texas? Last week we talked about Kate Cox, a 31-year-old mom of two, whose fetus was diagnosed at 20 weeks with a birth defect incompatible with life.

When we left off taping last Thursday morning, her lawyers were asking a Texas state judge for permission for her to have an abortion because her doctor said continuing the pregnancy could threaten her health and/or her ability to have more children in the future. Alice, a whole bunch of things happened after that. Catch us up.

Ollstein: People are really seizing on this case because it really calls the question on a lot of the assumptions of our post-Roe legal and health care landscape. And so a lower court ruled in her favor and said she should be able to get an abortion to protect her health and her ability to have another child. They said that the state should be barred from bringing criminal charges against the doctor performing the procedure. So that was all set to go forward.

And then the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who recently survived an impeachment attempt, I should note, moved to intervene and moved to ask the Texas Supreme Court to stop this abortion from happening. He argued that the woman should not qualify for a medical exemption, and the Texas Supreme Court put a hold on the lower-court ruling and said it needed a little more time to think about it. And then they came back and ruled against the woman and said she should not be allowed to get an abortion. But it was moot in terms of her specific situation because of the threats to her health. She had already been to the emergency room several times at this point, and so she decided to go out of state for the procedure.

When I wrote about this, I tried to look into what are the bigger implications here. And a legal expert said something that really struck me, which is that the entire Dobbs premise is that you could ban so-called elective abortions, but maintain access to medically necessary ones. Sometimes they’re called therapeutic abortions. There’s a lot of weird terminology. And this really calls that question, can you always distinguish between those two?

Who’s to say? Here, the doctor’s interpretation of which was which clashed with the state’s interpretation of which was which. A lot of states have these so-called “life of the mother” exemptions, and this really shows that they are very difficult to use in practice.

Rovner: I’ve covered this for so many years at the federal level with little wording changes to the Hyde Amendment, and the big fight has always been between exceptions for the life of the mother and for the health of the mother. And the anti-abortion movement has always said, you can’t have a health exception because that would include mental health and it would just include anyone who said she doesn’t want to be pregnant.

So the phrase is always “It’s a loophole you can drive a truck through.” But then you get to these cases where it clearly is women whose water breaks at 20 weeks, it will eventually be life-threatening, but is immediately health-threatening. But a lot of these states don’t have health exceptions because they say that they could be used too broadly, and that’s kind of where they get stuck, right?

Weber: Yeah. I just wanted to chime in and say that I think what’s interesting about this case is this is the first time I’ve heard a lot from folks that aren’t in the media at all, don’t read the media every day, don’t see the flood of stories that this podcast group and folks, probably many of the listeners to this podcast, have seen about abortion coverage. It’s the first time I got a wave of phone calls being like, “Hey, can you explain this to me? What does this mean?” So I think that this story out of Texas, this reality, this lawsuit, has broken through to the rest of the country.

I mean, granted, this is an anecdotal sample size of my family and friends that live in the heart of the country, but I do think this has broken through in a way that many of the other stories that we’ve all written here have not. And so I’m very curious to see how this continues to play out because I do think this is gaining a lot more awareness with these lawsuits. We have this one, and then I know there’s one in Kentucky that I think we’ll see play out in the next couple weeks and months, obviously.

Rovner: Yeah, and I think one of the things that’s really important about this is that we know her name and we know what she looks like because she’s been brave enough to come forward in the middle of this medical crisis and allow them to use her name and do TV interviews. And Alice, I interrupted you.

Ollstein: Oh, yes. A couple things. We haven’t mentioned that this was a non-viable pregnancy. Her fetus was diagnosed with a almost certainly fatal condition. So I think that’s another key piece of it. Other states have an exemption for fetal diagnoses like this where someone can get an abortion. Texas does not. And I talked to some Texas anti-abortion groups who were insistent that she should not be granted an exception and that the “compassionate” thing to do would be to force her to give birth and then watch the child die and mourn it. They were very explicit about that.

And so I think that is also capturing a lot of people’s attention, like Lauren was saying, where they’re fighting for a potential life that is very potential at this point. And you’re hearing a lot of rhetoric from conservatives right now that are insisting that allowing exemption for fatal fetal conditions is akin to eugenics. They say that these fetuses should be given every chance at life, even if that life is very brief and sometimes painful. So I think this is a debate we’ll continue to see play out.

Rovner: Yeah, I was surprised. I mean, Kellyanne Conway, of all people, who’s not just the former Trump aide, a prominent Republican pollster, actually had a tweet this week that suggested this is not great for Republicans. What’s happening to this woman? The fact that it’s so public. Riley, you wanted to say something?

Griffin: Yeah, just another point Alice mentioned, “this potential life,” but the attorneys have also mentioned the potential for future lives … that this woman, it’s not just her health being impacted, but it also could decrease her ability to have children in the future, which is another part of this story that I think is really tugging at people’s heartstrings. And just that the ruling came hours after she made the announcement that she’d left the state to get the procedure. I mean, all of these things combined make for such a poignant story.

And I want to bring in some research that has also recently been published, which suggests she’s not alone. Nearly 1 in 5 people seeking an abortion have traveled out of state, according to the Guttmacher Institute, citing data from the first half of 2023. And experts are saying this is probably an underestimate. And when you do get to those states in places where abortion remains legal, wait times are increasingly long.

So there are so many dynamics at play. It’s not just the states where access is limited and we’re seeing these very difficult rulings come down, but what are the consequences in the places where access remains available? But that flood of folks trying to get these procedures have to make that travel. Sorry, I jumbled my words there, but you understand what I’m saying, or I can try again.

Rovner: The other piece of that, if you play that all the way out, where women are having to travel and they often have other kids, so they have to get someone to watch their kids and they have to get time off of work, and they have trouble getting appointments in other states, and that means that these abortions are happening later in pregnancy, which is, I know, not what the anti-abortion movement wants. And also the later in pregnancy you get, the more risks there are and the more expensive the whole thing gets.

So it’s just the whole thing is piling on each other. But I think, Riley, something you said that I think I keep highlighting and want to keep highlighting, most of the women we’ve been talking about individually are women who got pregnant because they wanted to have a baby. These are not women who weren’t using birth control and like, oops, I got pregnant. Kate Cox wants to have more children. This was a very wanted pregnancy. … I think one of the things we’re discovering through all of this is that more pregnancies go wrong than people realize. It’s just that when pregnancies go wrong, people tend not to want to talk about it. It’s painful and awful, and it’s not like having your appendix out. So I think we’re kind of, as a population, discovering that pregnancy is fairly fraught. For every baby that’s born happy and healthy, there are a lot of pregnancies that just don’t work the way they’re supposed to.

Ollstein: And I also have seen a lot of chatter saying, “This is the new frontier. We’re going to see this wave of individual women suing for the right to have an abortion.” And I don’t think that’s true. Kate Cox’s lawyers don’t think that’s true. Most women in this circumstance can’t do this or are not willing to be the public face of a lawsuit and get all kinds of threats and harassment.

And a lot of people aren’t able physically to wait for a court to rule. Even Kate Cox wasn’t. And so the idea that there’s going to be so many people who are actively pregnant and seeking an abortion and have the resources to find an attorney willing to represent them and are willing to go through this, I think I’m hearing that that is not likely at all, that this is somewhat of an outlier.

Rovner: While we were talking about asking permission for courts, the Supreme Court this week declined to review a challenge to a Washington state law that banned so-called conversion therapy. I’m still having trouble wrapping my head around this because it’s like a quadruple negative, but what is conversion therapy and where are we now that the appeals court ruling is being allowed to stand?

Weber: I think a lot of people don’t realize this, but there was actually a report that just came out from The Trevor Project. Conversion therapy is a process in which people try to, they call it, convert LGBTQ folks to have heterosexual relationships, and there could be a wide array of what that means. It involves sometimes psychological therapy, sometimes physical therapy, all kinds of things. Many, many states have banned this because science has shown it is not an effective treatment and can lead to mental health effects.

But I think why this ruling is important is that, as I was saying, The Trevor Project has identified there’s over 1,300 practitioners of conversion therapies across the country. Even though this is banned in so many states, this is a practice that goes on and on and on, despite what seems to be a lot of negative health impacts of it. So the fact that the Supreme Court decided not to take this up at all is considered very much a win for the LGBTQ community, especially considering the fact that this does still go on in many, many states.

Rovner: At least … that’s one thing that’s off the table, at least for the very moment. Well, let us go back to Capitol Hill, where lawmakers are actually passing stuff, albeit so late in the session that these policies are unlikely to make it over the finish line until 2024.

The House Monday night passed a bill that includes a bunch of things we’ve been talking about all year: site-neutral payments in Medicare to prevent hospital outpatient departments from charging multiples more to Medicare than non-hospital affiliated facilities; banning some pricing practices by pharmacy benefit managers; clarifying and extending some price transparency rules for hospitals and insurers, particularly those not making their prices public even though it is now required by law; funding community health centers; and stopping some scheduled cuts to hospitals that serve a high proportion of low-income patients.

Yes, that’s a whole lot of things that don’t necessarily go together, but this is how Congress works. All of these things were supposed to happen before the start of the new fiscal year, Oct. 1. Now, let me check, it is the second week of December. These are pretty bipartisan policies, most of them. What the heck took them until December to get this through?

Ollstein: This has been, even by Congress’ standards, a historically unproductive Congress. We spent a lot of the year battling over who should be the House speaker, for instance. That took up a lot of time. They took a really long summer recess, and there’s been all kinds of back and forth over just keeping the government funded. So that has not left a lot of room for basic policymaking. And there’s the fear that heading into next year — a lot of this stuff is getting punted into next year — that only gets harder in an election year. They’re in session less time. There’s less of an incentive to compromise. People are really retreating into their corners. And so it’s not a great outlook, even for things that really are popular on both sides of the aisle.

I will say, on the site-neutral payments piece, that’s been a long-time goal for a lot of people. And what’s being debated now is seen by some as inadequate, way not enough. It’s only a narrow set of drugs within Medicare. People would like this to be implemented way more broadly.

But you also have the hospital industry really mobilizing against it and saying, “You know all those rural hospitals that are closing down and going out of business? That’s going to get worse if you do this.” And as we know, hospitals are often the biggest employer in a lot of congressional districts, and so that could make this hard to pass as well.

Rovner: The same thing with the PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] reforms, and you’ve got the drug industry and you’ve got the hospital industry. So even though these things are “bipartisan,” that doesn’t mean that there isn’t plenty of opposition out there, which I guess kind of answers my question of why this took so long. I imagine we expect this — now that it’s in a package — to go on the next government funding bill, which should be in January, right? That’s what we’re looking for?

Weber: Yes, it should go in the next government possible spending bill, but who knows? Are we headed towards another shutdown when that happens? I mean, we’ll have to see. And I just want to echo what Alice said. I mean, not doing a lot of lawmaking this year does have real consequences. I mean, when we talk about these site-neutral payments — I’ll never forget when I was at KHN [KFF Health News], I wrote a story about a seamstress who had rheumatoid arthritis, and she went to the same doctor’s office every time to get arthritis shots. Very normal treatment, right? Her doctor’s office moved up one floor and her bill went up 10 times. Her shots went from $30 to $300 because they were then considered an in-hospital facility. So when we talk about things like site-neutral payments, which are jargony words, they disguise what happens to everyday Americans and the actual cost — literal cost, physical and emotional and financial — of legislation like this not making it through.

Rovner: And I think the biggest irony is that when you look at public opinion polls, Democrats and Republicans are so divided on so many things, but one of the things that they are not divided on at all is that health care costs too much and the Congress should be doing things to make health care cost less. So these are things that, if they can get them over the finish line, would actually be popular.

Well, speaking of things Congress was supposed to do before the start of the fiscal year, Riley, you’re watching the progress of another bill we’ve been following, the SUPPORT [Substance Use Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities] Act, that authorized programs to fight the opioid epidemic. Remember the opioid epidemic? What’s the status of that bill?

Griffin: Yeah, great question. So more than two months ago, provisions from a major 2018 opioid law, the SUPPORT Act, which provides grants for states to pay prevention, treatment, and recovery services for people with opioid use disorders, expired. But on Tuesday, the House and Senate HELP Committee advanced that legislation in an effort to expand treatment for opioid use disorder amid the ongoing epidemic. And, as you’d mentioned, this is known as the Support for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act and the Modernizing Opioid Treatment Access Act.

And we saw the House overwhelmingly vote to reauthorize the law. And, meanwhile, the Senate HELP Committee also approved its version of the bill, setting up consideration by the full Senate and likely enactment of a new law quite soon. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont said that passing this $4.3 billion piece of legislation to reauthorize and expand the SUPPORT Act would be a huge success and will do a lot to increase the number of substance abuse counselors and mental health professionals.

Rovner: But again, not likely before the end of the year, this bill that should have been done before Oct. 1.

Griffin: Precisely. But again, also a place where you see that bipartisan support. I mean, the opioid epidemic is something that is coming up on the debate stage. Fentanyl is a buzzword that is being used by Democrats and Republicans alike. And not just to talk about the state of affairs here in the United States, where more than 100,000 people die every year of overdose-related deaths, but also to talk about immigration reform and China, right? These topics have all become a swirling part of the discourse on the opioid epidemic, and it’s something to watch going into the 2024 election.

Rovner: Yes. Something else that is linked to the whole opioid epidemic is this concern about life expectancy. We’ve had some new statistics on life expectancy, which is creeping back up now that deaths from covid are falling off, but not as fast as in many other industrialized countries. Women’s life expectancy is still substantially longer than men’s. What is up with this and what is holding the U.S. back? Why is our life expectancy still so much worse than people across the pond?

Weber: I think there’s a lot of things at play in the U.S. and a lot of it has to do … right now, we’re seeing it creep up because of the covid numbers. But what covid exposed was an absolute failure of primary care across the United States, an absolute failure of public health, an absolute failure to confront the fact that the vast majority of the reason that our life expectancy is so much worse than other countries is because of our chronic disease problem that is not getting dealt with.

And frankly, post-covid, it’s not like we’ve seen some sort of ginormous wake-up call overhaul either. I mean, this is the reality that we’re continuing to live in. So while it is heartening to see that the life expectancy numbers are changing a little bit because the covid death rates have gone down, I think the U.S. still has to grapple with the fact that we live in a country that is not addressing these issues. And I mean, I’ve talked about this on this podcast, but to reiterate again, politics does play into this.

As you see, there are … red states’ life expectancies are typically lower than blue states’ life expectancies. And that’s due in part to the fact that in the 1980s, Reagan and Congress allowed the states to decide how they were going to spend their public health and safety-net dollars in different ways, and we’ve seen that play out in this grand experiment over the last couple decades. And, again, doesn’t seem to be much reckoning with that either. So I think these life expectancy trends, where the U.S. lags behind other countries, are going to continue.

Rovner: Yeah, I wanted to actually call out a piece that Paul Starr at Princeton wrote about these red state-blue state differences because a lot of them we had talked about. Red states had earlier death rates because of the opioid epidemic and fentanyl and these deaths of despair.

But, actually, what the research that Paul Starr looked at was more what you’re saying, Lauren, which is that the states that enrolled children in Medicaid earlier are having better outcomes now, 30, 40, 50 years later, than the states that didn’t. And, also, the states that had restrictive gun laws are having longer life expectancies than states that didn’t. Riley, you’re nodding your head.

Griffin: It’s an amazingly unique American paradox to see greater spending on health care and yet shorter lives compared to other countries. Wealthy nations which spend half per person on health care compared to the United States are seeing their citizens outlive Americans by an average of more than five years. I mean, that data when you put it together is just so jarring. And it, as Lauren has been saying, has been cementing itself before the covid pandemic, which obviously had such a devastating toll.

But as we start to see that trend shift, where in 2022 life expectancy at birth was 77.5 years compared to 76.4 the year prior, that change is largely due to a decrease in covid deaths. We’re still seeing deaths from flu, pneumonia, fetal and infant conditions continue to rise. So the infectious disease front doesn’t look good in other spaces. And as you mentioned, Lauren, these chronic diseases that really set the U.S. apart from its peers, GDP-size-wise, is just so jarring.

Rovner: Finally, this week, because there isn’t already enough for us to worry about with the health system, cyberattacks appear on the upswing. Every week we hear about hospital IT systems literally being held for ransom and hacks into databases with our very most sensitive personal information, like 23andMe. Riley, you have a story about a hack at HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] that was more serious than we thought.

Griffin: Yeah, thank you for allowing me to speak about this story. So my colleague Jordan Robertson and I investigated a cyberattack that hit HHS at the very outset of the pandemic. And at the time, we found that it was downplayed by department leadership. So only years later, it’s three-plus years down the road, we’ve learned through on-record interviews and other discussions that it was actually quite an unusual and rather concerning case. Some of the officials described the attack as an attempt by a nation-state to break into the department managing the U.S. covid response just as HHS’ IT staff were temporarily loosening security to its more than 80,000 employees so that they could log in remotely. They used a common technique, which is called a DDoS, or a distributed denial-of-service attack, where hackers disrupt a computer network by flooding it with traffic.

Now, typically when people think of this kind of attack, it’s meant to overwhelm and then shut down the system. But what we learned through interviews with these officials is that it was more of an act of espionage. Rather than shutting down the system, it was intended to map HHS’ network. So a pretty concerning story to say the least. And another novel part of this is that the officials, the Chief Information Officer Jose Arrieta and Chief Information Security Officer Janet Vogel, said the attack began ramping up as early as October of 2019.

So a lot of strange pieces at play. Those two officials attribute the attack to China, though HHS has said it did not come to that conclusion. And the Office of Inspector General complicated the picture further by saying that they actually found it was connected to a person, an entity in Ukraine. So not all the questions are yet answered, but I think the takeaway from this story is that when a cyberattack hits, not everything is as it seems.

Rovner: Yeah, OK. All right, one more thing that we will consider on our watch list. All right, well, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with Jen Golbeck about her book on the science of dog love, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits.

I am so excited to welcome to the podcast Jen Golbeck, a computer science professor at the University of Maryland who studies the internet for a living. She does serious research about some pretty grim corners of the online community, which we will talk about in a moment. But she’s probably better known on social media as “GR Mom,” head wrangler of The Golden Ratio media universe that brings the joy of her ever-changing pack of special-needs golden retrievers to her hundreds of thousands of followers every day, myself included, I have to say. Jen, thanks so much for being here.

Jen Golbeck: My pleasure. Thank you.

Rovner: So we’ll get to your new book, “The Purest Bond,” in a moment. But first, I know you spent a lot of time tracking the behavior of some of the most unpleasant and reprehensible people online. Is that part of why you started your little social media corner of happiness?

Golbeck: Yes. So I am very on social media. I’m a computer scientist by training. And after [President Donald] Trump got elected, everybody was angry online. Regardless of who you voted for, everyone was angry. And I just found myself needing an escape from that and I couldn’t really find it. And at the time, I had four golden retrievers and I was like, you know what? That can’t get much happier, so let’s just start putting pictures of them up.

So it was as much therapy for me as anything else, but it really ended up resonating with people and bringing together this wonderful community of people. And anybody who’s not nice, we block and keep them out of there. Things have not necessarily gotten better, but different, since 2016, 2017, and people still need that escape, including me. So yeah, it’s been a real balm in contrast to my regular research work to do that.

Rovner: Which is, you should say, looking at how hate spreads online. Is that a lot of what you do?

Golbeck: That’s pretty close, yeah. I think my technical term I use is malicious online behaviors. So we look at hate speech and extremism, misinformation, conspiracy theories, all that kind of stuff. So dogs are a really nice antidote to that.

Rovner: So with all the terrible things that go on online, I’m fascinated by the devotion of little groups of people who share interests and love to interact with each other. I still obviously have to be on Twitter, or whatever it’s called now, for my job. And I remember when I first met Matt Nelson, actually at your live show, who’s the creator of WeRateDogs (dogrates), I thanked him for making the online hellscape just a little bit less hellish. Do we underestimate how much online relationships can benefit people as much as cause mischief?

Golbeck: Yeah. The research on this is so interesting. Because since Facebook became a thing, we’ve been really interested in what’s the impact, the psychological impact, of social media? And the answer is always it’s super mixed, which is a kind of an academic cop-out answer, but totally true. There’s all kinds of ways that, obviously, the internet can harm people, and we see that now especially with Instagram and girls with eating disorders and body image issues. We know that generally people who spend a lot of time on social media are less happy than people who don’t.

So there are unquestionably some negative impacts, but it’s a little bit easy to forget, and some people weren’t even alive, when we didn’t have access to communities online and how profoundly isolating life could be and how difficult it was to get access to anything, especially social support. So now you can be in a very rural isolated space and very different from what the social mores of your community would dictate you should be. And that’s something where, in the 1990s, you probably would’ve ended up very lonely and depressed and totally unsupported. And with the internet, you’re not. You can find all kinds of people in exactly the same position as you and get that social support. And that’s an extreme example of what we find, which is you can form real relationships online. And that’s why I tend to resist this distinction between the real world and online. The real world absolutely exists online, and I’ve found lots of real friends who I’ve met offline, but also just keep up relationships with online, and it’s so important.

Rovner: So you and your husband, Ingo, don’t just take in rescue golden retrievers, you take in rescue golden retrievers that are often older and sicker and who have been the most neglected and the most mistreated. Was that something intentional or did it just happen?

Golbeck: It a little bit evolved that way. I got to say, I am always drawn to the seniors, and when I started fostering really wanted to get some seniors. That’s not most of the dogs that come into rescue, actually. It’s usually young dogs who people got and weren’t prepared for, and we fostered 20 of those dogs, too. But, eventually, we did get a pair of seniors. I always thought three dogs was too many, so we would have three with a foster. But I was like, I’ll never actually have three dogs. And then we got this bonded pair. Both were seniors, and so there were four dogs. And as soon as they showed up at my house, I was like, oh, they have always lived here. Now I have four dogs. What am I going to do? And it was great, of course. And about a year later, the rescue was like, “We have this 13-year-old and her people don’t want her. Will you take her?” And I asked my husband, I’m like, “What do you think about five dogs?” And he said, “What’s the difference between four and five? It’s fine.” So then we had five kind of old dogs, or old rescues, three of them were old rescues.

And I think, eventually, the rescue group started realizing that I’d just say yes to whatever they would give me. And so the dogs that they were having a hard time finding someone to take, I’d be like, “Yeah, sure, send them over.” It’s been so rewarding, though, to take these dogs who need a lot of love and attention and care and who haven’t been getting it and being able to give them the love and support and medical care that they need. It’s really rewarding. So I was interested, and then we stumbled our way into something that’s turned into a mission for both of us.

Rovner: So I know a lot has been written over the years about the science of how pets can improve human health and vice versa. I actually looked it up. I wrote my first pet therapy story in 1982. I was 5. No, seriously, it was my first job out of college. But you’ve done something with this book that I haven’t really seen before. You’ve merged a lot of the scientific study with some actual practical advice for pet owners. I assume that was very much on purpose.

Golbeck: Yeah. We didn’t want this to be a self-help book or a dog-training book. At the same time, there’s a lot of things that people want to know as they’re discovering the science of how they bond with their dogs. And so we try to work a little bit of tips in there, along with a lot of science and then stories from people who have really seen those benefits in their everyday relationship with their dogs.

Rovner: What’s been the response?

Golbeck: It’s interesting. I was like, I don’t know that all of this is super surprising. There are some surprising results in there. At the same time, what we’re basically saying is that dogs make us feel good and they love us back and we love them a whole lot. And I think anybody who has a dog knows that that’s true. And the response has been consistently people saying, “I was so excited to see my experience reflected in there.”

So we have, for example, a chapter about dogs in the community and how if you have a dog, you meet everybody in your neighborhood by walking your dog. And you don’t even know their names. You maybe know their dogs’ names. And people are like, “Oh yeah, that’s totally it.” But they also feel really validated because we have these feelings about our relationship with our dogs, and some people tell us that we’re crazy. Some people say that we’re making it up. And what people are finding in the book is that there’s actually a ton of really rigorous scientific research to support them having those feelings that they already have. So it’s this great way of being like, “Yes, I’m not crazy. My dog really does love me back. This really is as deep as I feel like it is.” So that’s been a great response that I wasn’t necessarily expecting that’s what it would be.

Rovner: Well, good. Well, Jen Golbeck, thank you for the book. Thank you for all you do. Thank you for what you do for golden retrievers and for the rest of us dog lovers out in the community.

Golbeck: My pleasure. Thanks for having me.

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

Ollstein: Yes. I chose a really upsetting and important investigation by my colleague Ariel Wittenberg. It hits at the intersection of health, labor, climate. It’s about mail carriers around the country who are dying from heat exposure. This is actually killing more male carriers than car crashes or dog bites or any of the things you think of being the hazards of that job. And not only is this happening amid soaring temperatures in the summers in a lot of places in the South, but the Postal Service is not following its own rules for training workers on how to notice the signs of dangerous heat exposure and take steps to protect themselves. And not only are they lying, according to these documents she obtained about having done these trainings, they are pressuring these workers to move faster, to not take breaks because of the competition from other private delivery services like Amazon. So really, really important piece.

Rovner: Yeah, and I think also important for everybody who works outside, with climate change. Riley, why don’t you go next?

Griffin: Yes, my colleague Robert Langreth also has a story in this week’s Bloomberg Businessweek issue, and it is titled “The Next Blockbuster Drug Might Be Made in Space.” It’s a fun one. It describes how companies, including Big Pharma names like Eli Lilly, are using microgravity to develop drugs and improve formulations of existing blockbusters. So it’s a fun read. You can find it in print or online.

Rovner: Not everything in tech is bad. Lauren.

Griffin: Not everything is bad.

Weber: I’m continuing the trend of shouting-out my colleagues this week. So a bunch of my colleagues had an investigation titled “Applesauce Lead Cases in Kids Surge Amid Questions on FDA Oversight.” And so we’ve all heard about these applesauce packets for toddlers and babies that were contaminated with lead, but the official FDA numbers say it’s only like 60-something cases, but my colleagues called around the state health departments and they believe it’s at least suspected in over 118 cases, potentially more, which leads to the question of how widespread is all of this.

It lends itself to the questions of: Is the FDA’s oversight enough, especially when it comes to baby food? This is not the first baby food issue we’ve obviously had in the last couple years. It really is just a horror story for everyone. I mean, you’re just trying to feed your kids stuff that they like and then they’re sucking on something that could damage their brain development and hurt them for years to come. Really heart-rending storyline, and my colleagues did a great job showing that this is much further-reaching than has been previously disclosed.

Rovner: So another continuing theme of this year, the FDA’s regulation of food as opposed to the FDA’s regulation of drugs and how that sometimes falls by the wayside. Well, my story is also from The Washington Post, by Kent Babb. It’s called “They Watched Their Husbands Win the Heisman — Then Lost Them to CTE.” And it’s a really wrenching story about how the very best players in college football have something else in common besides athletic talent: That, over the years, more and more have joined the not-so-exclusive club of ex-players with brain injuries and related behavioral … excuse me. Over the years, more and more have joined the not-so-exclusive club of ex-players with brain injuries and related behavioral issues.

It’s the serious dark side of a sport that is so beloved in the United States, including by me, and that deserves not just a hard look but action to prevent some of these horrendous aftereffects.

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 Francis Ying for his technical expertise and amazing patience. 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, or @julierovner at Bluesky and Threads. Alice.

Ollstein: I’m @AliceOllstein on X and @alicemiranda on Bluesky.

Rovner: Lauren.

Weber: I’m @LaurenWeberHP on X and clearly need to improve the rest of my social media profiles.

Rovner: Riley.

Griffin: You can find me on Threads and X @rileyraygriffin.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

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.

Former president and current 2024 Republican front-runner Donald Trump is aiming to put a repeal of the Affordable Care Act back on the political agenda, much to the delight of Democrats, who point to the health law’s growing popularity.

Meanwhile, in Texas, the all-Republican state Supreme Court this week took up a lawsuit filed by more than two dozen women who said their lives were endangered when they experienced pregnancy complications due to the vague wording of the state’s near-total abortion ban.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine, Victoria Knight of Axios, and Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The FDA recently approved another promising weight loss drug, offering another option to meet the huge demand for such drugs that promise notable health benefits. But Medicare and private insurers remain wary of paying the tab for these very expensive drugs.
• Speaking of expensive drugs, the courts are weighing in on the use of so-called copay accumulators offered by drug companies and others to reduce the cost of pricey pharmaceuticals for patients. The latest ruling called the federal government’s rules on the subject inconsistent and tied the use of copay accumulators to the availability of cheaper, generic alternatives.
• Congress will revisit government spending in January, but that isn’t soon enough to address the end-of-the-year policy changes for some health programs, such as pending cuts to Medicare payments for doctors.
• “This Week in Medical Misinformation” highlights a guide by the staff of Stat to help lay people decipher whether clinical study results truly represent a “breakthrough” or not.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Rachana Pradhan, who reported and wrote the latest “Bill of the Month” feature, about a woman who visited a hospital lab for basic prenatal tests and ended up owing almost $2,400. If you have an outrageous or baffling medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Medicaid ‘Unwinding’ Makes Other Public Assistance Harder to Get,” by Katheryn Houghton, Rachana Pradhan, and Samantha Liss.

Joanne Kenen: KFF Health News’ “She Once Advised the President on Aging Issues. Now, She’s Battling Serious Disability and Depression,” by Judith Graham.  

Victoria Knight: Business Insider’s “Washington’s Secret Weapon Is a Beloved Gen Z Energy Drink With More Caffeine Than God,” by Lauren Vespoli.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: ProPublica’s “Insurance Executives Refused to Pay for the Cancer Treatment That Could Have Saved Him. This Is How They Did It,” by Maya Miller and Robin Fields.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• KFF Health News’ “Progressive and Anti-Abortion? New Group Plays Fast and Loose to Make Points,” by Darius Tahir.
• ProPublica’s “Some Republicans Were Willing to Compromise on Abortion Ban Exceptions. Activists Made Sure They Didn’t,” by Kavitha Surana.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Trump Puts Obamacare Repeal Back on Agenda

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Trump Puts Obamacare Repeal Back on AgendaEpisode Number: 324Published: Nov. 30, 2023

[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, Nov. 30, 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 video conference by Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, Julie.

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios News.

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone.

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with my colleague Rachana Pradhan about the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” This month’s patient fell into an all-too-common trap of using a lab suggested by her doctor’s office for routine bloodwork without realizing she might be left on the hook for thousands of dollars. But first, this week’s news — and last week’s, too, because we were off.

Because nothing is ever gone for good, the effort to repeal and replace Obamacare is back in the news, and it’s coming primarily from the likely Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump. Just to remind you, in case you’ve forgotten, Trump, during his presidency, even in the two years that Republicans controlled the House and the Senate, was unable to engineer a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, nor did his administration even manage to unveil an alternative. So what possible reason could he have for thinking that this is going to help him politically now?

Knight: My takeaway is that I think it’s a personal grudge that former President Trump still has, that he failed at this. And I think, when you talk to people, he’s still mad that Sen. John McCain did his famous thumbs-down when the rest of the Republican Party was on board. So I’m not sure that there is much political strategy besides wanting to just make it happen finally, because upset it didn’t happen.

Rovner: Is this part of his revenge tour?

Knight: I mean, I think somewhat. Because if you ask House Freedom Caucus people, they will say, “Yeah, we should repeal it.” But if you ask some more moderate Republican members, they’re like, “We’ve already been through that. We don’t want to do it again.” So I don’t think the Republican Party on the Hill has an appetite to do that, even if Congress goes to Republicans in both chambers.

Kenen: Trump never came up with a health plan and repeal died in the Senate, but remember, it was a struggle to even get anything through the House, and what the House Republicans finally voted for, they didn’t even like. So I don’t know if you call this a revenge tour, but it’s checking a box. But I think it’s important to remember that if you look closely at what Republican policies are, they don’t call it repeal, they don’t say, “We are going to repeal it.” That didn’t go so well for them, and it probably cost them an election.

But they still do have a lot of policy ideas that would water down or de facto repeal many key provisions of Obamacare. So they haven’t tried to go that route, and I’m not sure they would ever try a full-out repeal, but there are lots of other things they could do, some of which would have technical names: community rating and things like that, that voters might not quite understand what they were doing, that could really undermine the protections of Obamacare.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, I was going to say the Republican Party, in general, this has been the running joke since they started “repeal and replace” in 2010, is that they haven’t had the “replace” part of “repeal and replace” at all. Trump kept saying he was going to have a great plan, it’s coming in two weeks, and, of course, now he’s saying he’s going to have a great plan. We’ve never seen this great plan because the Republicans have never been able to agree on what should come next. Aside from, as Joanne says, tinkering around with the Affordable Care Act.

Kenen: Some of that tinkering would be significant.

Rovner: It could be.

Kenen: I mean there are things that they could tinker that wouldn’t be called repeal, but would actually really make the ACA not work very well.

Rovner: But most of the things that the Republicans wanted to do to the ACA have already been done, like repealing the individual mandate, getting rid of a lot of the industry-specific taxes that they didn’t like.

Kenen: Right. So they ended up getting rid of the spinach and they end up with the stuff that even Republicans, they might not say they like the ACA, but they’re being protected by it. And the individual mandate was the single-most unpopular, contentious part of the law and even a lot of Democrats didn’t like it. And so that target of the animus is gone. So by killing part of it, they also made it harder to do things in the future. They could do damage, though.

Rovner: Yeah. Or they could take on entitlements which, of course, is where the real money is. But we’ll get to that in a minute. Sarah, we have not seen you in a while, so we need to catch up on a bunch of things that are FDA-related. First, a couple of payment items since you were last here. The FDA has, as expected, approved a weight loss version of the diabetes drug Mounjaro that appears to be even more effective than the weight loss version of Ozempic. But insurers are still very reluctant to pay for these drugs, which are not only very expensive, they appear to need to be consumed very long-term, if not forever. Medicare has so far resisted calls to cover the drugs, despite some pressure from members of Congress, but that might be about to change.

Karlin-Smith: I think Medicare is getting a lot of pressure. They’re going to have to probably re-look at it at some point. What I found interesting is recently CMS [the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] regulates other types of health plans as well, and in the ACA space they seem to be pushing for coverage of these obesity drugs. And I think they’re thinking around that. They note that the non-coverage allowance for these ACA plans was based on … they were following what Medicare was doing and there’s some acknowledgment that maybe the non-Medicare population is different from the Medicare population. But I think it’s also worth thinking about some of their other reasoning for coverage there, including that these drugs are different than some of the older weight loss drugs that provided more minimal weight loss, had worse side effects, and it came at a time when weight loss was seen as more of a cosmetic issue. So if that ACA provision rule goes through, I think that does help the case for people pushing for coverage in Medicare Part D of these drugs.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean this seems to be one of these “between a rock and a hard place” … that the demand for these drugs is huge. The evidence suggests that they work very well and that they work not just to help people lose weight, but perhaps when they lose weight to be less likely to have heart attacks and strokes and all that other stuff that you don’t want people to have. On the other hand, at the moment, they are super expensive and would bankrupt insurance companies and Medicare.

Karlin-Smith: Right. I mean, we’ve seen this before where people worry there’s a new class of expensive drugs that a lot of people seem like they will need and it’s going to bankrupt the country, and oftentimes that doesn’t happen even whether it is, in theory, more coverage to some extent. We saw that with hep C. There was a new class of cholesterol drugs that came out a few years ago that just haven’t taken off in the way people worried they would. Some of these obesity drugs, they do work really well, not everybody really tolerates them as well as you would think. So there’s questions about whether that demand is really there. Sen. [Bill] Cassidy [R-La.] has made some interesting points about “Is there a way to use these drugs initially for people and then come up with something more for weight maintenance that wouldn’t be as expensive?”

Rovner: We should point out that Sen. Cassidy is a medical doctor.

Karlin-Smith: But I think the pressure is coming on the government. Recently, I got to hear the head of OPM [Office of Personnel Management], who deals with the insurance coverage for federal government employees, and they have a really permissible coverage of obesity drugs. Basically, they require all their health insurance plans to cover one of these GLP-1 drugs, and they have some really interesting language I’ve seen used by pharmaceutical companies to say, “Look, this part of the federal government has said obesity is a disease. It needs to be treated,” and so forth. So I don’t think the federal government is going to be able to use this argument of, “This is not a medical condition, and these are expensive, we’re not going to cover it.” But there’s definitely going to be tensions there in terms of costs.

Rovner: Well, definitely more to come here. Meanwhile, CMS is also looking at changing the rules, again, for some pharmacy copay assistance programs, which claim to assist patients but more often seem to enrich drug companies and payers. What is this one about? And can you explain it in English? Because I’m not sure I understand it.

Karlin-Smith: So most people, when you get a prescription for a drug, have some amount of copay, so your insurance company pays the bulk of the cost and you pay maybe $10, $20, $30 when you pick up your prescription. For really high-cost drugs, pharmaceutical companies and sometimes third-party charities often offer copay support, where they will actually pay your copay for you.

The criticism of these charities and pharma support is that it lets the companies keep the prices higher. Because once you take away the patient feeling the burden of the price, they can still keep that higher percentage that goes to your health plan and into your premiums that you don’t think about. And so health insurance companies have said, “OK, well we’re not going to actually count this coupon money towards your copay, your out-of-pocket max for the year, because you’re not actually paying it.”

So that doesn’t end up doing the patient much good in the end because, while you might get the drug for free the first part of the year, eventually you end up having to pay the money. The courts have weighed in, and the latest ruling was that the effect of it was essentially telling CMS, “You need to re-look at your rules. We don’t think your logic is consistent,” and they seem to potentially suggest that CMS should only allow copay accumulators if there’s a cheaper drug a patient could take.

So, basically, they’re saying it’s unfair to put this burden on patients and not let them benefit from the coupons if this is the only drug they can take. But if there’s a generic drug they should be taking, that’s the equivalent then, OK, insurance company, you can penalize them there. But interestingly, CMS has basically pushed back on the court ruling. They’re asking them for basically more information about what they’re exactly directing them to do and signaling that they want to keep their broader interpretation of the law.

It’s a tricky situation, I think, policy-wise, because there’s this tension of, yes, the drug prices are really high. The insurance companies have a point of how these coupons create these perverse incentives in the system, and, on the other hand, the person that gets stuck in the middle, the patient is not really the fair pawn in this game. And when talking about a similar topic with somebody recently, they brought up what happened with surprise billing and they made this parallel of we need to think about it as, OK, you big corporate entities need to figure out how to duke out this problem, but stop putting the patient in the middle because they’re the one that gets hurt. And that’s what happened in surprise billing. I’m not sure if there’s quite that solution of how you could do that in this pharmaceutical space though.

Rovner: I was just going to say that this sounds exactly like surprise billing, but for prescription drugs. Well, while we are talking about Capitol Hill, let’s turn to Capitol Hill, where the big news of the week is that House Republican conservatives, the so-called Freedom Caucus, have apparently agreed to abide by the deal they agreed to abide by earlier this year. At least that’s when it comes to the overall total for the annual spending bills. Then-Speaker [Kevin] McCarthy’s attempt to adhere to that deal is one of the things that led to his ouster. The conservatives had wanted to cut spending much more deeply than the deal that was cut, I think it was in May. Although I feel compelled to add: Cutting the appropriations bills, which is what we’re talking about here, doesn’t really do very much to help the federal budget deficit. Most of the money that the federal government spends doesn’t go through the appropriations process. It’s automatic, like Social Security and Medicare.

But I digress. Victoria, what prompted the Freedom Caucus to change their minds and what does that portend for actually getting some of these spending bills done before the next cutoff deadline, which is mid-January?

Knight: I mean, I think it’s the Freedom Caucus just facing reality and that it’s really hard to do budget cuts, and a lot of these bills, the cuts are very deep. For the Labor-HHS bill, which is the bill that funds the Department of Health and Human Services, the cut is 18%. To the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], 12% to the department itself. Those are really big cuts. And all the bills, you look at them, they all have really deep cuts.

The agriculture bill has deep cuts to the Department of Agriculture that some moderate Republicans don’t like. So all of the bills have these issues, and so I think they’re realizing it is just not possible to get what they want. Some of them didn’t vote for the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which was the deal that former Speaker McCarthy did with the debt limit that set funding levels. So they’re not necessarily going back on something that they voted for.

Rovner: They’re going back on something that the House voted for.

Knight: Yeah. So yeah, I think they’re just realizing the appropriations process, it’s difficult to make these deep spending cuts. I’ve also heard rumors that there might still be a big omnibus spending bill in January. Despite all this talk of doing the individual appropriations bills, I’ve heard that it may end up, despite all the efforts of the Republican Caucus, it may end where they have to just do a big bill because this is the easiest thing to do and then move on to the rest of the business of Congress for the next year. So we’ll see if that happens. But I have heard some rumors already swirling around that.

Rovner: I mean the idea they have now “agreed” to a spending limit that should have been done in the budget in April, which would’ve given them several months to work on the appropriations bills coming in under that level. And, of course, now we’re almost three months into the new fiscal year, so I mean they’re going to be late starting next year unless they resolve this pretty soon. But in the meantime, one thing that won’t happen is that we won’t get a big omnibus bill before Christmas because the deadline is now not until January, and that’s important for a bunch of health issues because we have a lot of policies that are going to end at the end of the year. Things like putting off cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, which a lot of people care about, including, obviously, all the doctors. Is there a chance that some of these “extender provisions” will find their way onto something else, maybe the defense authorization bill that I think they do want to finish before Christmas?

Knight: Yeah, I think that’s definitely possible. I’ve also heard they can retroactively do that, so even if they miss the deadline, it will probably be fixed. So it doesn’t seem like too big a worry,

Rovner: Although those doctor cuts, I mean, what happens is that CMS pens the claims, they don’t pay the claims until it’s been fixed retroactively. They have done it before, it’s a mess.

Kenen: And it’s bad for the doctors because they don’t get paid. It takes even longer to get paid because they’re put in a hold pile, which gets rather large.

Rovner: It does. Not that the defense bill doesn’t have its own issues around defense, but while we’re on the subject of defense, it looks like Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville might be ready to throw in the towel now on the more than 400 military promotions he’s been blocking to protest the Biden administration’s policy allowing members of active-duty military and their dependents to travel to other states for an abortion if it’s banned where they are stationed. This has been going on since February. My impression is that it’s his fellow Republicans who are getting worried about this.

Kenen: Yeah. They’re as fed up as the Democrats are now. Not 100% of them are, but there’s a number who’ve come out in public and basically told him to cut it out. And then there are others who aren’t saying it in public, but there are clearly signs that they’re not crazy about this either. But we keep hearing it’s about to break. We’ve been hearing for several weeks it’s about to be resolved, and until it’s resolved, it’s not resolved. So I think clearly there’s movement because the pressure has ramped up from his fellow Republicans.

Rovner: Well, to get really technical, I think that the Senate Rules Committee passed a resolution that could get around this whole thing-

Kenen: But they don’t really want to, I mean the Republicans would rather not confront him through a vote. They’d rather just stare him down and get him to pretend that he won and move on. And that’s what we’re waiting to see. Is it a formal action by the Senate or is there some negotiated way to move forward with at least a large number of these held-up nominations.

Rovner: It’s the George Santos-Bob Menendez health issue. In other words, they would like him to step down himself rather than have to vote to take it down, but they would definitely like him to back off.

Kenen: I mean, not confusing anybody but they’re not talking about expelling her from the Senate. They’re [inaudible] talking about “Cut this out and let these people get their promotions,” because some of them are very serious. These are major positions that are unfilled.

Rovner: Yes, I mean it’s backing up the entire military system because people can’t move on to where they’re supposed to go and the people who are going to take their place can’t move on to where they’re supposed to go, and it’s not great for the Department of Defense. All right, well, while we are on the subject of abortion, at least tangentially, the Texas Supreme Court this week heard that case filed by women who had serious pregnancy complications for which they were unable to get medical care because their doctors were afraid that Texas’ abortion ban would be used to take their medical licenses and/or put them in jail.

Kenen: For 99 years!

Rovner: Yeah, the Texas officials defending against the lawsuit say the women shouldn’t be suing the state. They should be suing their doctors. So what do we expect to happen here? This hearing isn’t even really on the merits. It’s just on whether the exceptions the lower court came up with will be allowed to take effect, which at the moment they’re not.

Kenen: The exception-by-exception policy, where things get written in, is problematic because it’s hard to write a law allowing every possible medical situation that could arise and then that would open it to all other litigation because people would disagree about is this close to death or not? So the plaintiffs want a broader, clearer exception where it’s up to the doctors to do what they think is correct for their patients’ health, all sorts of things can go wrong with people’s bodies.

It’s hard to legislate, which is OK and which isn’t. So the idea of suing your doctor, I mean, that’s just not going to go anywhere. I mean, the court is either going to clarify it or not clarify it. Either way, it’ll get appealed. These issues are not going away. There’s many, many, many documented cases of people not being able to get standard of care. Pregnancy complications are rare, but they’re serious and the state legislatures have been really resistant so far to broadening these exemptions.

Rovner: It’s not just Texas. ProPublica published an investigation this week that found that none of the dozen states with the strictest abortion bans broadened exceptions even after women and their doctors complained that they were being put at grave risk, as Joanne just pointed out. When we look at elections and polls, it feels like the abortion rights side very much has the upper hand, but the reverse seems to be the case in actual state legislatures. I mean, it looks like the anti-abortion forces who want as few exceptions as possible are still getting their way. At least that’s what ProPublica found.

Kenen: Right. One of the other points that the ProPublica piece made was many of these laws were trigger laws. They were written before Roe was toppled. They were written as just in case, if the Supreme Court lets us do this, we’ll do it. So they were symbolic and they were not necessarily written with a lot of medical input. And they were written by activists, not physicians or obstetricians.

And the resistance to changing them is coming from the same interest groups that want no abortions, who say it’s just not ever medically necessary or so rarely medically necessary, and it is medically necessary at times. I mean, there are people who, and this line saying, “Well, if you’re in trouble, you can’t have an abortion. But if you’re close to death you can,” that can happen in split seconds. You can be in trouble and then really be in real trouble. You can’t predict the course of an individual, and it’s tying the hands for physicians to do what needs to be done until it might be too late.

Knight: I think a lot of them don’t realize, until it starts happening, how many times it is sometimes medically necessary. It’s not even that a woman necessarily wants to get an abortion, it’s just something happens, and it’s safer for her to do that in order to save her life.

Karlin-Smith: And you’ve seen in some of these states, sometimes Republican women prominently coming out and pushing for this and trying to explain why it’s necessary. In some cases, they also have made the argument, too, that sometimes to preserve a woman’s fertility, these procedures are necessary given the current situations they face.

Kenen: There was a quote in that ProPublica story, and it’s not necessarily everybody on the anti-abortion rights side, but this individual was quoted as saying that the baby’s life is more important than the mother’s life. So that’s a judgment that a politician or activist is making. Plus, if the mother dies, the fetus can die too. So it doesn’t even make sense. It’s not even choosing one. I mean, in many cases if the pregnant person dies, the fetus will die.

Rovner: Well, finally this week, I want to give a shout-out to a story by my KFF Health News colleague Darius Tahir, who, by the way, became a father this week. Congratulations, Darius. The story’s about a group called the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising that purports to be both anti-abortion and progressively leftist and feminist. One of its goals appears to be to get courts to overturn the federal law that restricts protests in front of abortion clinics. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, known as FACE, is I think the only explicitly abortion rights legislation that became law in the entire 1990s, which makes you wonder if this group is really as leftist and feminist as it says it is, or if it’s just a front to try and go after this particular law.

Kenen: It sets limits of where people can be and tries to police it somewhat. But in Darius’ story, his reporting showed that they did, at least some of them, had ties to right-wing groups. So that they’re calling themselves leftist and progressive … it’s not so clear how accurate that is for everybody involved.

Rovner: Yeah, it was an interesting story that we will link to in the show notes. All right, now it is time for “This Week in Health Misinformation,” and it’s good news for a change. I chose a story from Stat News called “How to Spot When Drug Companies Spin Clinical Trial Results.” It’s actually an update of a 2020 guide that STAT did to interpret clinical trial results, and it’s basically a glossary to help understand company jargon and red flags, particularly in press releases, to help determine if that new medical “breakthrough” really is or not. It is really super helpful if you’re a layperson trying to make sense of this.

OK that is this week’s news, and I now will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Rachana Pradhan, and then we will come back with our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast my colleague Rachana Pradhan, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” installment. Always great to see you, Rachana.

Rachana Pradhan: Thanks for having me, Julie.

Rovner: So this month’s patient fell into what’s an all-too-common trap. She went to a lab for routine bloodwork suggested by her doctor without realizing she could be subjected to thousands of dollars in bills she’s expected to pay. Tell us who she is and how she managed to rack up such a big bill for things that should not have cost that much.

Pradhan: So our patient is Reesha Ahmed. She lives in Texas, just in a suburb of the Dallas-Fort Worth area, and what happened to Reesha is she found out she was pregnant and she went to a doctor’s office that she had never gone to before for a standard prenatal checkup, and she also had health insurance. I want to underscore that that is an important detail in this story. So the nurse recommended that Reesha get routine blood tests just down the hall in a lab that was in the adjoining hospital. And it was routine. There was nothing unusual about the blood tests that Reesha received. So what she was advised to do is after her checkup, she was told, “Well, here’s the bloodwork you need, and just go down the hallway here, into the hospital,” to get her blood drawn.

Rovner: How convenient, they have their own lab.

Pradhan: Exactly. And Reesha did what she was told. She got bloodwork done. And then, soon after that, she started getting bills. And they first were small amounts, like there was a bill for $17, and she thought, “OK, well that’s not so bad.” Then she got a bill for over $300 and thought, “That’s unusual. Why would I get billed this?” Then came the huge one. It was over $2,000. In total, Reesha’s overall lab work bills were close to $2,400 for, again, standard bloodwork that every pregnant woman gets when they find out that they’re pregnant. And so she, needless to say, was shocked and immediately actually started trying to investigate herself as to how it was possible for her to get billed such astronomical amounts.

Rovner: And so what did she manage to find out?

Pradhan: She tried taking it up with the hospital and her insurance company. And she just got passed around over and over again. She appealed to her insurance. They denied her appeal saying that, “Well, this bloodwork was diagnostic and not preventive, so it was coded correctly based on the claim that was submitted to us,” and the hospital even sent her to collections for this bloodwork. Unfortunately for Reesha, this pregnancy ended in a miscarriage, and so it was particularly difficult. She was dealing with all the emotional, physical ramifications of that, and then on top of that, having to deal with this billing nightmare is just a lot for any one person to handle. It’s too much, honestly.

Rovner: So we, the experts in this, what did we discover about why she got billed so much?

Pradhan: You can get bloodwork at multiple places in our health system. You could get it maybe within a lab just in your doctor’s office. You can go to an outside lab, like an independent commercial one, to get bloodwork done and you can sometimes get labs within a hospital building. They may not look any different when you’re actually in there, but there’s a huge difference as to how much they will charge you.

Research has shown that if a patient is getting blood tests done, things that are relatively routine and just as a standalone service, hospital outpatient department labs charge much, much more. There’s research that we cite in the story about Reesha that … she lives in Texas … bloodwork in Texas, if it’s done in a hospital outpatient department is at least six times as expensive compared to if you get those same tests in a doctor’s office or in an independent commercial lab.

Rovner: To be clear, I would say it’s not just bloodwork. It’s any routine tests that you get in a hospital outpatient department.

Pradhan: That research, in particular, was looking at blood tests actually, in particular, just any lab work that you might get done. So the conclusion of that is really that there’s no meaningful quality difference. There’s really no difference at all when you get them in a doctor’s office versus a hospital or a lab, and yet the prices you pay will vary dramatically.

Rovner: Yeah, there should be a big sign on the door that says: “This may be more convenient, but if you go somewhere else, you might pay a lot less and so will your insurance.” What eventually happened with Reesha’s bill?

Pradhan: Well, eventually, the charges were waived and zeroed out and she was told that she would not have to pay anything and all the accounts would be zeroed out to nothing.

Rovner: Eventually, after we started asking questions?

Pradhan: Yes. It was a day after I had sent a litany of questions about her billing that they gave her a call and said, “You now won’t have to pay anything.” So it’s a big relief for her.

Rovner: Obviously this was not her fault. She did what was recommended by the nurse in her doctor’s office, but there are efforts to make this more transparent.

Pradhan: Yeah. I think in health care policy world, the issue that she experienced is a reflection of something called site-neutral payment, which essentially means if payment is site-neutral for a health care provider, it means that you get a service and regardless of where you get that service, there is no difference in the amount that you are paying. There are efforts in Congress and even in state legislatures to institute site-neutral pay for certain services.

Bloodwork is one that is not necessarily being targeted, at least in Congress. But I will say, I think one of the big takeaways about what patients can do is if they do get paperwork from your doctor’s office saying, “OK, you need to get some blood tests done,” you can always take that bloodwork request and get it done at an independent lab where the charges will be far, far less than in a hospital-based lab, to avoid these charges.

Rovner: Think of it like a prescription.

Pradhan: Exactly. It might not be as convenient in that moment. You might have to drive somewhere, you can’t just walk down a hallway and get your blood tests and labs done, but I think you will potentially avoid exorbitant costs, especially for bloodwork that is very standard and is not costly.

Rovner: Yet another cautionary tale. Rachana Pradhan, thank you very much.

Pradhan: Thanks for having me, Julie.

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

Karlin-Smith: Sure. I took a look at a ProPublica piece by Maya Miller and Robin Fields, “Insurance Executives Refused to Pay for the Cancer Treatment That Could Have Saved Him. This Is How They Did It.” And it tells the story of a Michigan man who had cancer, and the last resort treatment for him was CAR-T, which is a cellular therapy where they basically take some of your cells, reengineer them, and put them back into your body, and it is quite expensive and it can come with a lot of expensive side effects as well.

FDA considers it a drug, and Michigan state law requires cancer drugs be covered. The insurance company of this man, basically on a technicality, denied it, describing it as a gene therapy, and he did die before he was able to fully push this battle with the insurance company and get access to the treatment and so forth. But I think the piece raises these broader issues about [how] few states are able to proactively monitor whether insurance plans are properly implementing the laws around what is supposed to be covered and not covered.

Few people really have the knowledge or skill set, particularly when you’re dealing with devastating diseases like cancer, which are just taking all of your energy just to go through the treatment, to figure out how to fight the system. And it really demonstrates the huge power imbalances people face in getting health care, even if there are laws that, in theory, seem like they’re supposed to be protected.

I also thought there’s some really interesting statistics in the story about, yes, even though the price tag for these products are really expensive, that the health insurance company actually crunched the numbers and found that if they shifted the cost to premiums in their policyholders, it would lead to, like, 17 cents a month per premium. So I thought that was interesting, as well, because it gives you a sense of, again, where their motivation is coming from when you boil it down to how the costs actually add up.

Rovner: And we will, I promise, talk about the growing backlash against insurance company behavior next week. Victoria.

Knight: So my extra-credit article is a Business Insider story in which I’m quoted, but the title is “Washington’s Secret Weapon Is a Beloved Gen Z Energy Drink With More Caffeine Than God.” And it basically talks about the phenomenon of Celsius popping up around the Hill. So it’s an energy drink that contains 200 milligrams of caffeine. It tastes like sparkling water, it’s fruity, but it’s not like Monster or Red Bull. It tastes way better than them, which I think is partly why it’s become so popular.

But anyways, I’ve only been on the Hill reporting for about a year and in the past couple months it has really popped up everywhere. It’s all around in the different little stores within the Capitol complex, there’s machines devoted to it. So it talks about how that happened. And I personally drink almost one Celsius a day. I’m trying to be better about it, but the Hill is a hard place to work, and you’re running around all the time, and it just gets you as much caffeine as you need in a quick hit. But the FDA does recommend about 400 milligrams a day. So if you drink two, then you’re not going over the recommendation.

Rovner: Well, you can’t drink anything else with caffeine if you drink two.

Knight: That’s true. And I do drink coffee in the morning, but it has some funny quotes to our members of Congress and chiefs of staff and reporters about how we all rely on this energy drink to get through working on the Hill.

Rovner: I just loved this story because, forever, people wonder how these things happen in the middle of the night. It’s not the members, it’s the staff who are going 16 and 20 hours a day, and they’ve always had to rely on something. So, at least now, it’s something that tastes better.

Knight: It does taste better.

Rovner: That’s why it amused me, because it’s been ever thus that you cannot work the way Capitol Hill works without some artificial help, shall we say. Joanne.

Kenen: We used to just count how many pizza boxes were being delivered to know how long a night it was going to be. I guess now you count how many empty cans of Celsius.

Knight: Exactly.

Rovner: I personally ran more on sugar than caffeine.

Kenen: OK. This is a piece by Judy Graham of KFF Health News, and the headline is “A Life-Changing Injury Transformed an Expert’s View on Disability Services.” And it’s about a woman many of us know, actually Julie and I both know: Nora Super. I’ve known her for a long time. She’s an expert on aging. She ran one of the White House aging conferences. She worked at Milken for a long time. She worked at AARP for a while.

She’s in her late 50s now, and in midlife, she started having really severe episodes of depression, and she became very open about it, she became an advocate. Last summer, she had another episode and she couldn’t get an appointment for the treatment she needed quickly enough. And while she was waiting, which is the story of American health care right now, and while she was waiting for it, she did try to take her own life. She survived, but she now has no sensation from the waist down.

And her husband is a health economist, and I should disclose, my former boss at one point, I worked for and with Len for two years, Len Nichols. So this is a story about how she has now become an advocate for disability. And this is a couple with a lot of resources. I mean both knowledge, connections, and they’re not gazillionaires, but they have resources, and how hard it has been for them even with their resources and connections. And so now Nora who, when she’s well, she’s this effervescent force of nature, and this is how she is turning — her prognosis, it could get better, they don’t know yet — but clearly an extraordinarily difficult time. And she has now taken this opportunity to become not just an advocate for the aging and not just an advocate for people with severe depression, but now an advocate for people with severe disability.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, it’s everything that’s wrong with the American health care system, and I will say that a lot of what I’ve learned about health policy over very many years came from both Len Nichols and Nora, his wife. So they do know a lot. And I think what shocked me about the story is just how expensive some of the things are that they need. And, again, this is a couple who should be well enough off to support themselves, but these are costs that basically nobody could or should have to bear.

Kenen: Even … it was just a lift to get her into their car, just that alone was $6,500. And there are many, many, many things like that. And then another thing that they pointed out in the article is that most physicians don’t have a way of getting somebody from a wheelchair onto the examining table other than having her 70-year-old husband hoist her. So that was one of the many small revelations in this story. Obviously, it’s heartbreaking because I know and like her, but it’s also another indictment of why we just don’t do things right.

Rovner: Yes. Where we are. Well, my story is yet another indictment of not doing things right. It’s by my colleagues Katheryn Houghton, Rachana Pradhan, who you just heard, and Samantha Liss, and it’s called “Medicaid ‘Unwinding’ Makes Other Public Assistance Harder to Get.” And it’s just an infuriating story pointing out that everything we’ve talked about all year with state reviews of Medicaid eligibility, the endless waits on hold with call centers, lost applications, and other bureaucratic holdups, goes for more than just health insurance. The same overworked and under-resourced people who determine Medicaid eligibility are also the gatekeepers for other programs like food stamps and cash welfare assistance, and people who are eligible for those programs are also getting wrongly denied benefits.

Among the people quoted in the story was DeAnna Marchand of Missoula, Montana, who is trying to recertify herself and her grandson for both Medicaid and SNAP (food stamps), but wasn’t sure what she needed to present to prove that eligibility. So she waited to speak to someone and picking up from the story, “After half an hour, she followed prompts to schedule a callback, but an automated voice announced slots were full and instructed her to wait on hold again. An hour later, the call was dropped.” It’s not really the fault of these workers. They cannot possibly do what needs to be done, and, once again, it’s the patients who are paying the price.

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 this week to Zach Dyer for filling in as our technical guru while Francis [Ying] takes some much-deserved time off. Also, as always, you can email us your questions or comments. We are at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me at X, for now, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and Threads. Joanne.

Kenen: I’m mostly at Threads, @joannekenen1. Occasionally I’m still on X, but not very often, that’s @JoanneKenen.

Rovner: Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: I am @SarahKarlin, or @sarahkarlin-smith, depending on the platform.

Rovner: Victoria.

Knight: I am @victoriaregisk [on X and Threads]. Still mostly on X, but also on Threads at the same name.

Rovner: We’re all trying to branch out. We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Zach Dyer
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).