In this episode of “An Arm and a Leg,” Dan Weissmann goes toe-to-toe with Scott Purcell, CEO of ACA International, a trade association for the collection industry, on the effects these lawsuits have on patients.

With help from The Baltimore Banner and Scripps News, Weissmann pulls back the curtain on hospital bill lawsuits in three states — Maryland, Wisconsin, and New York — and discovers some good news for a change.

Dan Weissmann

@danweissmann

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

Credits

Emily Pisacreta
Producer

Adam Raymonda
Audio wizard

Ellen Weiss
Editor

Click to open the Transcript

Transcript: ‘An Arm and a Leg’: When Hospitals Sue Patients (Part 2)

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

Dan: Hey there – So, this is part two of a two-part story. If you missed part one, or just want a refresher, here’s three quick things: 

First: Some hospitals – definitely not all – sue a LOT of patients over unpaid bills. Hundreds or even thousands every year. 

Second: There’s very little money in it for these hospitals. When reporters and researchers add up the total amounts they’re suing for, it looks tiny compared to, say, their annual surplus. Or what they pay executives. Tiny.

Third: There’s data showing a LOT of the people being sued are … pretty hard up already. 

That a lot of them would qualify for charity care under the hospitals’ own financial-assistance policies.

In fact, as we reported last time, a guy named Nick McLaughlin, who spent a decade working for a medical-bill collections agency… now runs a business telling hospitals they’d be better off – financially – writing these bills off through charity care or financial assistance programs. 

And I should point out: Nick’s not a do-good crusader. He has started a business, to help hospitals do this. And he’s staked his family’s financial future on it.

Nick: I had a good but challenging conversation with my wife. And she said, hey, so is the reason we’re not doing this full time because we’re scared the money’s not gonna come in? And I said, well as the sole provider of a family of five that’s kind of a big deal. She said, yeah, I think we should do it.

Dan: And at the end of our last episode, I asked Nick: So, why would some hospitals make the decision to sue people, if there’s no money in it? What’s behind that decision:

Nick: It’s really, I would say, philosophically based.

Dan: So, in this episode, we’ll do two things: One, we’ll try to get a peek at that philosophy – inside the heads of the people who might hold it.

And TWO: We’re gonna share some hard data about what’s going on with these lawsuits in three states. We partnered with two awesome news organizations to get this data. 

And I’m gonna tell you: we found what really looks like some good news.

And the whole inquiry really drove home ways we can help ourselves, and each other. 

Here we go.

With Scripps News and the Baltimore Banner, this is An Arm and a Leg – a show about why health care costs so freaking much, and what we can may be do about it. 

I’m Dan Weissmann. I’m a reporter, and I like a challenge. So our job on this show is to take one of the most enraging, terrifying, depressing parts of American life and bring you something entertaining, empowering, and useful.

So, let’s talk about that philosophy. You could call it a form of… not thinking too hard. Let’s start with a witness. 

These days, Ruth Lande works for a nonprofit you may have heard of – RIP Medical Debt – to get hospital bills forgiven.

But WE talked with her because she spent more than 25 years working in hospital billing, most of it at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. And by the way, she loved it.

Ruth Landé: In general, I think it’s good if a job has three things. It’s for a good mission. Two, it should be hard. It should be complicated so it engages your brain every day. And third, it should be with really good colleagues. And I got to tell you, working revenue cycle satisfied all three of those for me. 

Dan: And of course, during her quarter-century in the business, the question of whether or not to file lawsuits over hospital bills did come up. 

When she got a promotion. 

In her earlier role, she’d run one part of the billing department, where they never sued. Now she was taking over another part of the billing department, a bigger one, where sometimes they did. 

She says her new colleagues were aware that in her earlier position, she’d taken a no-lawsuits approach.

Ruth Landé: There was an assumption, oh yeah, Ruth won’t allow that. 

Dan: But, she told me, she didn’t want to be in conflict with her new colleagues from Day One. 

Ruth Landé: And so I said, well, I’m not going to just ban it, but you know, bring me cases. If you believe that we should be suing a person, then just bring me the case so I can review it. And they never brought a case to me ever. 

Dan: Never ever. She thinks those colleagues maybe hadn’t stopped to look at who they were suing.

Ruth Landé: When you really examine closely you see the harm. I They would have probably imagined that they’re only suing some really rich people sitting up in a mansion somewhere, not bothering to pay their bills.

You might imagine: It would be interesting to talk with someone who thinks this way – really talk with them, push them on their point of view.

And that did happen. Kind of. 

It was honestly one of the most confusing conversations I’ve ever had. It was with this guy. 

Scott Purcell: My name is Scott Purcell. I’m the CEO of ACA International.

Dan: That’s the industry association for folks in the bill-collection business. Scott was super-accommodating – got on Zoom with me within a day of my first email to him. So quickly that it wasn’t till we got on that I realized we hadn’t set a length. 

Dan: How long do I actually have you for?

Scott Purcell: How long do you need us for?

Dan: Uh, I like to talk to people for a long time, but we start with a half an hour and maybe…

Scott Purcell: um, bum bum bum. I just need to change one meeting. 

Dan: We talked for more than an hour. 

The first half-hour was one kind of frustrating. 

I’d describe our findings and findings from other people’s reports — for instance, how little money hospitals seem to gain from these lawsuits — and ask if he had data to help understand what we’re seeing, and he kept saying, effectively: 

Hey, let’s not jump to policy conclusions. How would a new policy on debt collection affect a medical office with just three doctors? 

Scott Purcell: And I would say that three person doctor office is different from one of the top 10 nonprofit health care system. Their economics are completely different. And yet we’re talking about policy positions. that impact both

Dan: And then, in retrospect I’ve figured out a spot where we really, really lost each other. I was talking about one observer’s take on why these lawsuits don’t bring in much money:

Dan: A lot of the people that end up as your defendants are effectively indigent. Um, you know, they don’t have a lot of income. They may not have W2 employment that you could garnish. They don’t have other assets you can take. So, the amount that you get is not, not what you might expect from looking at the number of cases and the number of judgments. So that was another…

Scott Purcell: If I could stop you there, I’d love to see that data. Do you know that it takes a lot of money to file a lawsuit? I can’t think. And so my lived experience, I cannot think of one instance where either the hospital or the collection agency or the attorney would choose to sue an indigent person because if they are going to have a low probability of being able to repay that that over time, why would you invest? 

Dan: What I didn’t realize then, was: when I said some people were “effectively indigent,” Scott Purcell had latched onto the word “indigent” and had a very specific image in his mind, of absolute destitution. From that point forward, anything I would say about people being sued who were hard up, who qualified for charity care, who really couldn’t pay – was gonna run through this filter. 

And: Any example I’d bring up of someone being sued who got put in an extremely tough position… was just gonna sound to him like a novel anecdote.

A half-hour in, I got pretty direct with Scott, so I asked:

Dan: How did this happen? How did it happen that we, like, got to the point where so many people are being sued over debts they can’t pay? What do you know about that?

And this is where things got really confusing to me. Because here’s how Scott responded:

Scott Purcell: Well, if you just sued somebody who can’t pay, they’re not going to pay you. So, they’re not out any money. So you made a bad business decision, but truly Dan, what is the harm they’re experiencing? The fact that they got sued and they can’t pay?

Dan: I didn’t see that coming – the idea that being sued could be “harmless”?. Here’s what I said:

My gosh. Well, I can tell you that, you know, people, by the time they’ve been sued, they’ve been getting tons of collections calls, their credit may have suffered, and they have a judgment against them that says like any money that shows up in their bank account can be seized or that, you know, the next time they get a job, their wages can be garnished. That’s pretty significant harm. 

I described to Scott the story of Liz Jurado, a woman on Long Island who says she found out, years after the fact, that she had been sued over a bill relating to the birth of one of her kids. A bill she says she thought insurance had paid. Her husband was the main breadwinner, until he got laid off. Liz took a job working for DoorDash to support the family – her first W2 paycheck – and she says that’s how she found out about the lawsuit. Because once she starts the job, she starts getting letters, saying her wages are going to be garnished. And she’s like:

Liz Jurado: What is this? Where did it come from? How could they not tell me about it until now?  I get a job and three months later, you’re coming after me. I mean, this is my family’s bread and butter.  This is horrible.

Dan: I said to Scott: That seems bad, right?

Dan: So I’m, I’m, I’m trying to give you the opportunity to respond to that point that lots of people make that. If you get sued over a debt you can’t pay, there’s harm. That’s, that’s a lot of people’s positions, and I find it fairly persuasive. How do you respond to that? 

Scott Purcell: You and I were using a hypothetical. You said somebody got sued who’s indigent. Has no money.

Dan: Do you think that doesn’t happen?

Scott Purcell: I don’t understand the business case as to why that would. 

Dan: But, like, do you think it doesn’t happen because, like, do you think the reports that show that it happens a lot are wrong? I mean, I talked to a couple, a couple months ago who got sued over a debt. I mean, their story was like, they got hit with a bunch of medical problems.

I described to him the story of Casey and Ron Gasior, who we met in our last episode. The bills for those medical adventures threw their finances completely out of whack.

Casey: We would dig little bit out of our hole, and then we’d go right back down. 

Dan: … until they were in danger of losing their house. They filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy – wrapping everything they owed into a five year payment plan. They’d just about made it through, when they got a letter from a law firm earlier this year: They were being sued over a medical bill, that had arrived just after their bankruptcy started. I was getting a little worked up. 

Dan: So, these are not hypothetical, and these are not, like, you know, these stories are just entirely consistent with the data that, that gets collected. So, when you ask me, like, what’s the harm? I want to give you this opportunity to say, like, you sure that’s your position?

Scott Purcell: So, first of all, that was on a different, that was a different question. I made an assumption of that story that they were indigent now and would be indigent – I was saying, I don’t know why that decision got made if indeed that person, um, is indigent, why a particular, um, provider has whatever parameters they’ve set for their lawsuit program. I can’t speak to the business decisions they’re making. I can speak to, societally, what do we expect people to pay and not pay? 

Dan: With the case of the couple in Wisconsin, if they couldn’t pay ever, if their chapter 13 hadn’t worked out, and they’d lost their house, and they’d lost their jobs, and they couldn’t pay ever, are you saying they wouldn’t be harmed?

Scott Purcell: I’m saying the answer lies in taking those stories to the table. And let’s take a look at what are the other policy changes that should be made in order to get better outcomes. So, in the situation you did outline, I am sure that individual actually went through emotional stress. But there’re safeguards throughout. 

Dan: So you’re saying you view this as a kind of exceptional case and that generally there are, from what you know, guidelines and guardrails, as you say, to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

Scott Purcell: It’s the thing I don’t have data to answer it. 

Dan: Yeah, it’s — I mean, I just need to say: It’s striking, um, that you asked — you’re, yeah, like: Where’s, where’s the harm?

Scott Purcell: I made an assumption of that story that they were indigent now and would be indigent–

Dan: Well, I guess I just don’t understand, I, I don’t really quite understand the difference. Can you explain the distinction between someone being indigent right now, being indigent forever, I don’t really get the distinction at all. And I don’t know in which case, in which case there is harm, in which case there isn’t in your view.

Scott Purcell: So, um, I wasn’t being flippant. I was taking a very extreme… um, I’m in D.C. I see homeless people now. So when I heard you say indigent, I’m thinking somebody who’s living under a bridge. They deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. I was thinking that level of indigency. You’re talking about, I think, the, the working class, and people beyond that. And up to the higher end scale is your question. And for that, my question or my answer is back to there are safeguards that should be occurring. And if those safeguards don’t occur, harm does happen. And we collectively need to look at why there are gaps in those safeguards.

Dan: So in retrospect – knowing how Scott Purcell took that word indigent – I’m a little less mystified. But the conversation still seems really… striking to me.

For one thing, there’s the idea — even if it’s not a conscious philosophy  — that some people are beyond hope, so they’re beyond harm. So morally, it wouldn’t matter if, say, you sued them.

But the other thing that strikes me is the difficulty Scott Purcell had understanding – believing – that people being really harmed is something that happens at scale. That last thing he said: “There are safeguards that should be occurring, and IF those safeguards don’t occur, harm does happen.”

That word “IF” seems to be doing a lot of work there. 

Beyond the mountains of data that folks have compiled – showing that people get sued who qualify for charity care, and that people who get sued over medical bills tend to live in neighborhoods where poverty is high – there’s the finding that’s practically a cliche: 

About four out of ten Americans don’t have enough money on hand to cover a 400 hundred dollar emergency expense. Maybe I should have explained that to Scott Purcell. 

But I just didn’t think I’d need to. He’s sitting atop a whole industry that NEEDS to know, basically, how much money people have. Since we talked, I’ve seen a report for folks in his industry – third-party collections – that goes into a lot of detail on that topic. 

Of course, third-party collections agencies are for-profit businesses. And at least for some of them, lawsuits like these are part of the business. 

So, I guess I’m starting to understand – maybe belatedly – how hard it is to get some people to reconsider business as usual. Is business as usual a philosophy?

But sometimes business as usual does change. In fact, I’m about to share some much more cheerful news with you. It’s what our partners found when we went looking for details on these hospital bill lawsuits in three states. 

Because the big surprise was in what we DIDN’T find.

That’s coming right up. 

This episode is produced in partnership with KFF Health News. That’s a nonprofit newsroom covering health care in America. Their incredible journalists win all kinds of awards every year. I’m so glad to get to work with them. 

This investigation builds directly on reporting by KFF reporters like Jay Hancock, Noam Levey and Jordan Rau. Respect. 

OK, so this whole inquiry — into why some hospitals sue so many patients who could just get charity care — started a couple of years ago. 

That’s when I spotted what looked like a clue – in a big report done by National Nurses United. It looked at 145 thousand hospital lawsuits against patients in Maryland over a ten-year period.

And in addition to documenting how little money hospitals were getting from these suits — compared to the million-dollar salaries they paid a lot of executives — 

This report also noted– just kind of by-the-way, on page 18 of a 68-page report – that a relatively small number of attorneys were filing most of these lawsuits.

Just five attorneys filed almost two-thirds of the cases.

And just one attorney filed more than 40,000 cases. 

I was like, huh! Maybe that’s a clue. 

It seems like hospitals don’t get a lot of benefit from these lawsuits. But maybe we’re looking at someone who does. We should find out more. 

Starting with the names of those lawyers, which weren’t in the report.

And I was gonna want a big update on Maryland.

That report was part of a big advocacy campaign – which really worked. 

In 2021, Maryland enacted a new law saying hospitals couldn’t sue anybody without checking to see if they qualified for free care.

Which in retrospect, may seem like an obvious requirement. Here’s Malcolm Heflin, one of the organizers who worked on the campaign.

Malcolm Heflin: It’s like reading the postscript in a Dickens novel almost. It’d be like, “Oh yeah. Hey, look, now we can’t chain children to factory machines.” Like what? Wait, what? That was legal before? 

Dan: Anyway, if that report was the “before” picture, what would “after” look like? I was gonna need help. And I got some.

Ryan Little: my name is Ryan Little and I am the data editor at the Baltimore Banner.

Dan: The Banner is a new nonprofit daily newspaper – without the paper. Data reporting is a big specialty, and Ryan is the big specialist. Pulling a LOT of Maryland courts data was already on his to-do list.

Ryan Little: And so I said, maybe there’s a way that we can make a partnership happen. And then many months later, you’ve probably regretted that, but we’ve had a good time doing it. Anyways…

Dan: No way. Are you kidding me?

Ryan’s amazing. I am so lucky to get to work with him. 

But I wanted to know about more than just Maryland. And I got lucky there too. 

Maryland’s not the only state where advocates compiled a bunch of court data to push for change. You might remember Elisabeth Benjamin in New York from our last episode. 

She’s the one who pointed out how little money is involved in these suits – for hospitals she has looked at.

Elisabeth Benjamin: They’re suing people for pennies. right. The average law suits maybe 1900 bucks. So they’re suing them for chump change, but that $1,900 is like life ruining for the patient.

Dan: She knew that because she had pulled more than 50 thousand hospital-bill lawsuits from across the state. She used that data in a series of reports that got new laws passed – like one banning wage garnishment to pay medical debts. 

And she shared a giant spreadsheet with me, which included the names of attorneys in 40 thousand cases.

And guess what? Just three law firms handled the majority of those cases. So now we knew: This wasn’t just a Maryland thing.

But we were gonna want to look somewhere else too. Someplace where no new laws had been passed. Someplace that was still a “before” picture. Someplace like Wisconsin.

I’d been getting reports from a public-interest lawyer there named Bobby Peterson. He’d been publishing some data about lawsuits, but hadn’t gotten laws passed. And he also wasn’t able to share data. I was gonna need MORE help. 

Rosie Cima: My name is Rosie Cima and I manage a data reporting team at Scripps News. I also report for them. 

Dan: YES! More data help. Scripps News came aboard as a partner, and Rosie started looking for the data we’d need in Wisconsin.

And at this point, it may be getting clearer why it has taken us more than a year to bring this story to you. Let’s just recap for a second all the moving parts we’ve got in play here:

We’ve got Ryan, pulling cases in Maryland, Rosie doing the same in Wisconsin, and me with some New York cases.

We’re looking to see what the “after” picture looks like in Maryland and New York, and we’re looking at the role of a few lawyers.

And this is where I admit: that initial hypothesis? That the lawyers were driving these lawsuits, sweet-talking hospitals to drum up business?

It didn’t really pan out. As far as I can tell, after talking with a bunch of people and looking at a bunch of reports, it doesn’t seem to work that way. 

A lot of the time, anyway, it seems like the lawyers are often freelancers. They get hired by the collection agencies.

Who get their marching orders from the hospital revenue office.

But I’m so glad we went looking, because of what we did find. 

Or, you could say, what we didn’t.

In Maryland, Ryan spent months and months and months collecting hundreds of thousands of cases, then weeks and weeks crunching the numbers. And then… 

Ryan Little: On Wednesday, September 6th, I sent this email. I find this hard to believe. But it may be that there were zero medical debt lawsuits filed by hospitals against individuals in 2022 and 2023. 

Dan: He found it hard to believe – like, it must be wrong – so he went back to try to find his mistake. That took almost a week.

Ryan Little: On Monday, September 11th, I emailed, Hey Dan, news that hospital debt collection lawsuits had ended in Maryland was wrong. It looks like the Maryland Judiciary is somehow suppressing them in case search. Either intentionally or not, I’m rewriting the code to account for this.

Dan: He thought the Maryland court system was HIDING these cases. Not only did he rewrite the code, he went to the courthouse to go hunt for whatever was missing. 

It took him another week. And then I got one more email.

Ryan Little: So on September 18th, I said, Maryland hospitals are dot, dot, dot. Basically not suing anyone for medical debt anymore. 

Dan: Basically not suing anyone for medical debt this year. WOW. I mean, we had expected a significant drop– if only because Maryland had passed that 2021 law, which required hospitals to see if people were eligible for charity care before suing them. 

But zero was a much bigger drop than we’d expected. 

Next stop, New York. A few months ago, we looked at those three law firms – the ones that handled the majority of hospital-bill cases there. 

And as far as we could tell, two of them were just not doing any work for hospitals at all anymore.

But OK, again: We’d expected an “after” picture in both these states. What about Wisconsin?

Well, for one thing, it turned out to be TOUGH. 

Rosie Cima: When we took this on the first time, it definitely seemed like it’d be a lot easier than it ended up being. 

Dan: You can pull some case data from the web, but there’s a problem: Once a case has been dismissed, it gets taken off that website after a few years. 

Rosie Cima: So all the data that we had from before 2020 was missing some unknown number of cases

We can laugh about it now, but that sucked. We did find some guys who had data on older cases socked away. From them, we got the full caseloads for two lawyers we’d heard did a lot of medical-bill lawsuits.

Rosie Cima: We found more than 8000 cases in one year, um, for two lawyers, 

Dan: That was 2019. Pre-pandemic. 

Rosie Cima: And in 2022, There were fewer than 1400 for both of them.

Dan: In other words, these two lawyers were doing less than a quarter as much medical-bill business as they’d been doing three years earlier.

And Rosie pulled numbers year by year, client by client, which was super-revealing. 

Because for both of them, many of their biggest clients – hospitals and medical practices for whom they had been filing hundreds of cases a year – weren’t filing any cases.

Which wasn’t totally conclusive. We knew these lawyers were getting less work…

Rosie Cima: The thing that we didn’t know was, like, whether, Hospital A had stopped suing, or whether they just stopped hiring this lawyer.

Dan: Right. So Rosie went back to the public data website to see whether those hospitals A, B, C and so on were suing. And for the most part, they weren’t — at least not like they used to. 

Rosie Cima: Yeah, we now know that those cases weren’t going to a different lawyer. Right? They’re just not, they’re just not being filed.

Dan: Just not. Being filed. And it wasn’t just the hospitals that had been using these two lawyers that had fallen away. Other hospitals that had been suing tons of patients had cut way back. 

From more than a thousand in 2019 to a few dozen, or less than a dozen. Or one. Or zero. 

One hospital system sued more than 47 hundred people in 2019. In 2023 so far, they’ve sued one.

And remember, because older cases get wiped from the web, there’s some unknown number of cases from 2019 we aren’t seeing. The decline is probably bigger than what we see.

So, one thing to say is: We don’t know WHY this is happening. In any of these states. Our colleagues at the Baltimore Banner called every hospital in Maryland to ask about these changes, and got a bunch of no-comment. We emailed dozens of hospitals in Wisconsin and basically got the same answer.

So we’re left with some guessing – and here are some of our best guesses: 

Those new laws in New York and Maryland didn’t outlaw lawsuits… but the Maryland law made them more difficult, and the New York laws made it harder to collect. 

And the campaigns that led to those laws brought a LOT of negative attention to hospitals that filed a lot of lawsuits. So one way or another, it seems like a lot of hospitals decided it wasn’t worth it.

And in Wisconsin? Laws didn’t change, but the reports that the lawyer Bobby Peterson put out there did get some attention locally. 

We know in Wisconsin, lawsuits halted altogether for a while when the pandemic started. Maybe hospitals noticed that they weren’t exactly losing a ton of money when that happened?

Here’s one last data point from Rosie. She looked closely at the cases she had for those two lawyers from 2019. The ones where the hospital was awarded a judgment.

Rosie Cima: We found that the majority of those awards were never fulfilled, like, I, I feel like that’s important, a judge said, yes, you defendant owe this case. company, the plaintiff, this much money and in a lot of cases, the plaintiff hasn’t paid out. And it’s been years.

Dan: Which I don’t think is evidence that “Wow, these folks were really good at dodging payment!” No, because in a lot of these old cases, the judge gave an OK to garnish these folks’ wages: To take money directly from their paycheck.

So if these debts haven’t been paid, years later – and remember, these are often amounts of a thousand dollars or less – it seems like these folks may be earning so little that garnishing their wages for years doesn’t get you much. 

So, to start wrapping up: There’s a TON we don’t know. For one thing, there’s 47 other states we haven’t looked at. And we don’t know if hospitals in these three states will start suing again, when they think nobody’s looking.

But here’s something I do know: A surprising number of those other states have been passing new laws and regulations in the last couple years, to prevent hospitals from filing so many lawsuits against folks who qualify for charity care: 

Illinois, Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon. I’m probably missing some. 

But here’s the single biggest thing I’m taking away from this whole adventure: A LOT more people qualify for charity care– free or discounted care from the hospital– than we think.

And we can help ourselves and each other, just by spreading the word.

I called Casey Gasior in Wisconsin a couple weeks ago. It wasn’t a great day for her.

Casey: Everybody in my house is sick and I just tested positive for covid. And now we’re going to lose work time.

Dan: Right.

Casey: I tell you, it never ends.

Dan: I was calling because I knew: Casey and her husband Ron have had more medical adventures this year. More knee trouble for him, emergency surgery for her, time away from work and lost income for both of them. And thousands of dollars of new medical bills. 

I said to her: It seems like maybe you and Ron might qualify to have some of those bills forgiven through charity care.

Casey: I think my, my husband makes too much. 

And I was like, well, maybe. But as we learned from Nick McLaughlin in our last episode, almost 60 percent of Americans qualify for charity care at a bunch of hospitals. 

And the nonprofit Dollar For has created a database of the charity care policies of almost every hospital in the country – and they’ve built it into their website. 

So you can type in a few details – where you were treated, how much you make – and it’ll tell you whether you’re likely to qualify for help.

Dan: So, I’m looking at their website right now.

And would it be okay with you to just kind of walk through kind of what they’re asking you, what they, um…

Casey: Yeah, sure.

Dan: Questions included: Where’d you get seen, and when?

Casey: Um, my surgery was July 24th.

Dan: Casey and I went line by line, filling out the form. I had her hunting for tax returns, and other documents

Casey: Hey, Ron. Can you send me a, um, a pay stub? Can you send me a picture of it? Like, now?

Dan: Okay. Alright, I’m going to add those up. There we go.

And yeah, so Dollar For thinks that you would qualify, 

Casey: Wow. That surprises me. 

Dan: This is good.

Casey: This is really…

Dan: Yeah. I’m really glad that we took this step.

Casey: Yeah, me too, because I was kind of, I didn’t know where to go and like, it, it seems so weird asking for charity.

Dan: But Casey was ready to take the next step.

Casey: Now this application that I’m filling out now do I have to do one for myself and one for Ron. 

Dan: Yes. Yeah. 

Casey: Okay, I’m going to work on this

Dan: Okay. Fantastic.

And this is a thing that we can do for ourselves, and each other. Spread the word: The majority of people qualify for at least some charity care – at least partially wiping out your bill – at a LOT of hospitals. 

The Dollar For website is set up to tell you if you’re likely to qualify, and to help you apply. They’ve also got actual human beings on staff to help if you get stuck.

Their website is Dollar For – that’s Dollar F-O-R dot org. Dollar F-O-R dot org. 

And that is our story. We never got all the way to the bottom of the question of WHY these bulk lawsuits happened – or why they seem to have stopped in some places – but we did get a peek into the process. 

And we learned some things that are heartening – a lot fewer lawsuits in these three states!

I’ve learned a lot more, along the way – there’ll be follow-ups. 

This has been a HUGE project for our little outfit. We got a ton of help from our partners, and we put a TON of resources into it: Travel to Wisconsin and Michigan, MONTHS of phone calls, 1600 bucks to get court records. 

We’ve been able to do that because you’ve been supporting us– giving us the resources to do the job. And this is the absolute best time to pitch in: 

Every dollar you give is matched. A few generous Arm and a Leg listeners have put up more than 10 thousand dollars in matching funds ON TOP of what the Institute for Nonprofit News does through their NewsMatch program – and I want to max it out. 

The place to go is Arm and a Leg Show, dot org, slash support. And there’s a link in the show notes – pretty much anywhere you’re listening to this. 

We’ll be back next week with a quick little coda to this story.

Meanwhile, thank you so much for helping us make this show. I’m gonna give that address one more time: Arm and a Leg show dot com, slash support. 

I’ll catch you next week.

Till then, take care of yourself.

This episode of An Arm and a Leg was produced by me, Dan Weissmann, with Emily Pisacreta and Bella Czakowski. 

In partnership with Scripps News, thanks to Rosie Chima, Amber Strong, Claire Malloy, Jacqueline Baylon and Zach Toombs and the Baltimore Banner, thanks to Ryan Little, Meredith Cohn, Brenna Smith and Kimi Yoshino and the McGraw Center for Business Journalism at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at the City University of New York, with thanks to Jane Sasseen.

Our work on this story is supported by the Fund for Investigative Journalism, and edited by Ellen Weiss. 

Big thanks also to Jared Walker, Bobby Peterson, Luke Messac, Jeff Bloom, Emily Stuart, Berneta Hayes, Matt Szaflarski, Amanda Dunkler, and Marceline White! Plus Barry and Jo from Court Data Techologies, in Wisconsin.

Gabrielle Healy is An Arm and a Leg’s managing editor for audience – she edits the First Aid Kit newsletter.

Sarah Ballema is our Operations Manager. Bea Bosco is our Consulting Director of Operations.

An Arm and a Leg is produced in partnership with KFF Health News. 

That’s a national newsroom producing in-depth journalism about health care in America, and a core program at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. 

You can learn more about KFF Health News at arm and a leg show dot com, slash KFF. 

Zach Dyer is senior audio producer at KFF Health News. He is an editorial liaison to this show. 

Thanks to the INSTITUTE FOR NONPROFIT NEWS for serving as our fiscal sponsor, allowing us to accept tax-exempt donations. You can learn more about INN at I-N-N dot org. 

And thanks to everybody who supports this show financially. 

If you haven’t yet, we’d love for you to pitch in to join us. Again, the place for that is arm and a leg show dot com, slash support.

And now, time for one of my favorite parts: Shouting out some of the folks who have made donations since our last episode. Thanks this time to…

[DAN READS NAMES]

Thank you so much!

“An Arm and a Leg” is a co-production of KFF Health News and Public Road Productions.

This episode was produced in partnership with Scripps News, The Baltimore Banner, and the McGraw Center for Business Journalism at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at the City University of New York.

Work by “An Arm and a Leg” on this article is supported by the Fund for Investigative Journalism.

To keep in touch with “An Arm and a Leg,” subscribe to the newsletter. You can also follow the show on Facebook and X, formerly known as Twitter. And if you’ve got stories to tell about the health care system, the producers would love to hear from you.

To hear all KFF Health News podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to “An Arm and a Leg” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, 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).

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.

Congress narrowly avoided a federal government shutdown for the second time in as many months, as House Democrats provided the needed votes for new House Republican Speaker Mike Johnson to avoid his first legislative catastrophe of his brief tenure. But funding the federal government won’t get any easier when the latest temporary patches expire in early 2024. It seems House Republicans have not yet accepted that they cannot accomplish the steep spending cuts they want as long as the Senate and the White House are controlled by Democrats.

Meanwhile, a pair of investigations unveiled this week underscored the difficulty of obtaining needed long-term care for seniors. One, from KFF Health News and The New York Times, chronicles the financial toll on families for people who need help for activities of daily living. The other, from Stat, details how some insurance companies are using artificial intelligence algorithms to deny needed rehabilitation care for Medicare patients.

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

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Congress passed a two-part continuing resolution this week that will prevent the federal government from shutting down when the current CR expires Nov. 18 at 12:01 a.m. The new measure extends some current spending levels, including funding for the FDA, through Jan. 19. The rest of federal agencies, including most of the Department of Health and Human Services, are extended to Feb. 2.
• House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has said he wants to use the next two months to finish work on individual appropriations bills, none of which have passed both the House and Senate so far. The problem: They would deeply cut many popular federal programs. They also are full of changes to abortion restrictions and transgender policies, highlighting the split between the GOP caucus’ far-right wing and its more moderate members.
• In the wake of abortion rights successes in passing abortion rights ballot initiatives, new efforts are taking shape in Ohio and Michigan among state lawmakers who are arguing that when Dobbs turned this decision back to states, it meant to the state legislatures — not to the courts or voters. Most experts agree the approach is unlikely to prevail. Still, it highlights continuing efforts to change the rules surrounding this polarized issue.
• Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) — who was the only remaining Republican presidential candidate pushing for a national, 15-week abortion ban — suspended his campaign last week. He, along with former Vice President Mike Pence, who bowed out of the race at the end of October, were the field’s strongest anti-abortion candidates. This seems to suggest that the 15-week ban is not drawing voter support, even among Republicans. Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump, the GOP’s front-runner by miles, continues to be willing to play both sides of the abortion debate.
• Amid increasing concern about the use of artificial intelligence in health care, a California class-action lawsuit charges that UnitedHealth Group is using algorithms to deny rehabilitation care to enrollees in its Medicare Advantage program. The suit comes in the wake of an investigation by Stat into insurer requirements that case managers hew to the AI estimates of how long the company would pay for rehabilitation care, regardless of the patient’s actual medical situation.
• More than 10 million people have lost Medicaid coverage since states began reviewing eligibility earlier in the year. Advocates for Medicaid patients worry that the Biden administration has not done enough to ensure that people who are still eligible for the program — particularly children — are not mistakenly terminated.

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’ “How Lawmakers in Texas and Florida Undermine Covid Vaccination Efforts,” by Amy Maxmen.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times’ “They Wanted to Get Sober. They Got a Nightmare Instead,” by Jack Healy.

Rachel Cohrs: Stat’s “UnitedHealth Pushed Employees to Follow an Algorithm to Cut Off Medicare Patients’ Rehab Care,” by Casey Ross and Bob Herman.

Joanne Kenen: ProPublica’s “Mississippi Jailed More Than 800 People Awaiting Psychiatric Treatment in a Year. Just One Jail Meets State Standards,” by Isabelle Taft, Mississippi Today.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• KFF Health News’ “Facing Financial Ruin as Costs Soar for Elder Care,” by Reed Abelson, The New York Times, and Jordan Rau.
• JAMA Internal Medicine’s “Excess Death Rates for Republican and Democratic Registered Voters in Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” by Jacob Wallace, et al.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Congress Kicks the (Budget) Can Down the Road. Again.

[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. 16, 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: Hello.

Rovner: Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi, everybody.

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi everyone.

Rovner: No interview this week, but more than enough news, so we will get right to it. So the federal government is not going to shut down when the current continuing spending resolution expires at 12:01 a.m. Saturday. In basically a rerun of what happened at the end of September, new House Speaker Mike Johnson ended up having to turn to Democrats to pass another CR. This one extends a bunch of federal programs until Jan.19 and the rest of them until Feb. 2. Most of HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] is in the latter category, but the FDA, because it’s funded through the Department of Agriculture, its spending bill would be in the group that’s funded only through Jan. 19. Don’t worry if you don’t remember that.

The stated goal here is to use the next two months, minus what’s likely to be a sizable Christmas break, to finish work on the individual appropriation bills, of which exactly zero of 12 have passed both the House and Senate and been sent to the president. Meanwhile, in just the last week, House Republicans have been unable to pass any of the individual appropriations they have brought to the floor and a few haven’t been able to even get to the floor. Yesterday, Republican leaders pulled the plug on the rest of the week’s floor schedule, literally in the middle of a series of votes on the HHS spending bill. So Democrats are not going to bail them out on these individual bills the way they have on the relatively clean continuing resolutions because the individual bills include very deep spending cuts and lots of abortion and transgender and other culture wars riders. So what exactly do they think is going to change between now and the next deadline?

Ollstein: Well, there’s been a lot of chatter about how cranky members of Congress have gotten because they worked 10 weeks in a row. Most of us work 10 weeks in a row without destroying each other, but there it is. And so there’s the hope that when they come back …

Rovner: Yes, there were threats of physical violence this week.

Ollstein: And allegedly some actual physical violence. Most of us work 10 weeks in a row without assaulting our colleagues, but we are not members of Congress. So the idea is they could take some time to cool off and come back and be more collaborative, but really this is a problem the Republican Caucus has not been able to solve. You have dissent on the right of the caucus and the sort of more moderate left or more left side of the caucus. You have moderate members who are worried about getting reelected in districts that voted for [President Joe] Biden who are not wanting to vote for these spending bills that are full of anti-trans and anti-abortion provisions, which you could easily picture that being used against them in campaign ads. And then you have folks on the far right in the Freedom Caucus who are sort of tanking these individual bills to protest the overall trajectory of spending and the overall process. So this is not going away anytime soon. And, like you said, Democrats are not bailing them out here.

Cohrs: One other point I wanted to make, sorry, Julie, on the deadlines is that for people who are interested in health policy and PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] reform and DSH [Medicaid’s Disproportionate Share Hospital] cuts, all of those. Those all have a Jan. 19 deadline. So those will come with the first round. So I think for the people out there who are worried about those policies, community health centers, extenders, that will happen with the first deadline even though the full Labor, HHS preparations aren’t until the second one.

Rovner: Yeah, these continuing resolutions do carry some of these extraneous, what we like to call “extender,” provisions that would otherwise have expired. And so they’ll keep them going for another couple of months and keep lobbyists busy wringing their hands and keep all of our inboxes full of emails of people warning of terrible things that will happen if these programs aren’t continued. But I want to go back to the underlying problem here, though, is that first of all, the conservative Republicans say they want to put the budget on a different trajectory. Well, discretionary spending, which is what we’re talking about here with the 12 spending bills, is a tiny portion of what makes up the budget and the budget deficit. So even if they were to cut all of these programs as dramatically as they like, they wouldn’t have much of an impact on the overall budget. I’m sort of mystified that people don’t keep pointing that out.

Ollstein: Well, and they’re also cutting things that won’t save money. I mean, they wanted to cut things like IRS enforcement, which would lose money because then the IRS wouldn’t be going after wealthy tax cheats and recouping that government spending. And so some of this is ideological. They’re going after health care programs that support LGBT people, for instance, and that doesn’t save that much money. But there’s been a lot of speeches from Republicans railing against the substance of the programs and calling them “woke” and inappropriate and such. And so, yes, some of this is fiscal, but a lot of it is also ideological.

Kenen: Yeah, it’s a relatively small portion of federal dollars, but a relatively large portion of culture war.

Rovner: Yes, I think that is a very good way to put it because, of course, it’s a place where they can put culture war things because they have to come up every year. But yeah, I think that’s why we end up fighting over this. All right, well this fight has been put off until 2024, although it’ll be the first thing when we get back.

Kenen: Yeah. And nothing’s really going to change except maybe cooler heads prevail. Anyone see any cooler heads around there? They may come back a little bit more personally tolerant when they’ve had some time off over the holidays. But the basic ideological and political alignment and the loggerheads, it’s like the only thing that changes between November, December, and January is it’s colder here then.

Rovner: Yeah, that’s exactly correct. Yeah. The far right of the House Republican Caucus is going to have to realize that there is a Senate and there is a president and they all get a say in what these final bills look like too. So they can’t just dictate we’re going to make all these cuts and, if not, we’re going to close down the government, unless that’s what they decide to do.

Kenen: But I think they skipped that session in their orientation.

Rovner: Yeah. Apparently.

Kenen: They’re not finding, “OK, where’s the compromise? What do we really, really, really want? And what are we willing to trade that for?” They’re not doing that. If you give and take, everybody gets some victory, and you have to identify what victory you can get that satisfies you. But there’s no sign of any kind of realistic grasp that this is divided government.

Rovner: Right. And they yet to figure that out. All right, well let us turn to abortion, where there is always news. We are going to start in Ohio, where last week voters, by a pretty healthy margin, approved a ballot measure to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution. Now, though, some anti-abortion lawmakers in Ohio say, “Never mind, we can overrule that.” Really, Alice?

Ollstein: So there are efforts going on in both Ohio and Michigan to block, undo, undermine what voters voted for in these referenda and, based on talking to sources, it seems like neither of these really have legs. They’re sort of seen as just messaging. But I think that even the attempt to try to undermine or undo what voters overwhelmingly approved is telling and interesting. And, of course, it builds on all of the attempts leading up to the votes that we saw from these same forces to try to change the rules, make it more difficult. So I think when state legislatures around the country come back into session in January, we’re going to be watching closely to see if they pass things that aim to block these votes. So definitely something to keep an eye on.

Rovner: I did see that this speaker of the Ohio House has poured at least some cold water on this effort. The argument had been from some of these lawmakers that because the Supreme Court gave this decision back to the states, that means only state legislatures and not the courts and not the voters directly. Am I interpreting that right?

Kenen: Yeah, the speaker was pretty firm. He said … what did he say? It was “Schoolhouse Rock”? He basically said that the voters, they matter.

Rovner: Yeah.

Ollstein: And what’s interesting is that the court that they want to cut out of this in Ohio is very conservative. And so this isn’t like, “Oh, we want to block these liberal activist judges from weighing in here.” This is “We want to keep this solely in the hands of the legislature and not have, really, courts have a role in it at all,” although the courts are very conservative and tilt in the anti-abortion direction anyway, which I think is notable.

Rovner: We’ll definitely watch that space in the upper Midwest/Great Lakes. Well, elsewhere, in Alabama, in a story that I didn’t think got the coverage it deserved, the Justice Department is joining a case brought by an abortion fund and some former abortion providers about whether the state might be able to prosecute them for helping women travel to obtain an abortion in another state. Department of Justice says, “Of course, states can’t prevent people from traveling to other states for things that are legal in another state, but not in their state. Otherwise, very few people would be able to go to Las Vegas.” But the state attorney general has yet threatened to try to prosecute, has he not?

Ollstein: Yeah, so this is happening in a few states, but it’s sort of come to a head in Alabama in terms of treating groups that either provide material support for people to travel across state lines for an abortion or even just information, even just “Here’s a clinic that you can call in this other state.” Not even a formal referral, medical referral, but just information about where to go. The attorney general has threatened to consider that kind of a criminal conspiracy to violate Alabama’s abortion ban.

So this is an interesting test, and I think it may — like the travel bans we’ve been seeing proposed and even implemented in some cities, states, et cetera. They’re sort of trying a bunch of different things. But these are basically impossible to enforce. And so, really, what’s happening here is an attempt to undo some of the chilling effect of these laws. Right now, people are so afraid of being charged with criminal conspiracy that they’re holding off on, even providing publicly available information that’s likely protected by the First Amendment. And so they’re hoping that a court ruling saying “You do have the right to at least discuss this and even give people support to travel” will undo some of that chilling effect. And yeah, I think that’s sort of the key here.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, moving on to Texas, where a lot of these other travel bans have been tried, at least in some cities and counties, we want to go back to that case where a half a dozen women who couldn’t get care for pregnancy complications, because of the state’s abortion ban, sued. Well, now there are 22 plaintiffs in that case, including two doctors and a then-medical student who discovered her fetus’s lethal abnormalities at an 18-week scan. The Texas Supreme Court is supposed to hear this case later this month, but, Alice, this could really end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, couldn’t it? This is the concern of women who are not trying to have abortions. They were basically trying to complete pregnancies and have had things go terribly wrong. And, as you just said, doctors are afraid to treat them for fear that they’re going to be prosecuted.

Ollstein: Yeah. And so this is where state abortion bans are running up against federal protections for … you have to treat a patient who comes in who’s experiencing a medical emergency. This is the EMTALA, a federal law, and these things are in conflict. Anti-abortion groups and advocates say that they are not, and that medical care in these situations is already protected. But as we’ve seen with this chilling effect, doctors are afraid to act in these situations and they’re telling patients to go away and come back when things are more dire. And that, in some cases, in these plaintiff’s cases, has led to pretty permanent damage, damage to their future fertility, threats to their lives. And so these cases are not seeking to get rid of the abortion bans entirely, as some other lawsuits are, but they are seeking to really make clear, because it’s not clear to medical providers right now, make clear what is allowed in these really sensitive and precarious medical situations.

Rovner: Yeah, I keep hearing a lot of the anti-abortion forces saying, “Well, it’s not technically an abortion in these cases. If it’s an ectopic pregnancy or something or the woman’s water has broken early and she’s going to get septic.” And it’s like, “Except that medically, yes, they are. A termination of pregnancy is termination of pregnancy.” And that’s why the doctors are saying, “You can call this anything you want. We’re the ones who are going to get thrown in jail and lose our medical licenses.” All right. Well, before we move on, I want to talk some abortion politics. Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who had been the only Republican presidential candidate strongly pushing for a federal 15-week abortion ban, suspended his campaign this week after what happened in Virginia last week, which we talked about at some length. When Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin tried to win back the state legislature for Republicans by promising to sign his own 15-week ban and lost spectacularly. Where does that leave Republicans on abortion going into 2024? Obviously, the 15-week ban as a compromise doesn’t seem to be flying.

Ollstein: No, it’s certainly not. And Tim Scott and Mike Pence were some of anti-abortion groups’ favorite candidates who were saying what they wanted to hear, and both of their campaigns have now ended. And so, meanwhile, you have the people who have been a little more squishy, from anti-abortion advocates’ perspective anyways, like Nikki Haley and [former President Donald] Trump himself, doing the best. DeSantis also sort of middling right now on the downward trajectory, seemingly.

Rovner: DeSantis, who signed a six-week ban in Florida.

Ollstein: Exactly, but was also kind of unclear about what he would do as president, which the anti-abortion groups did not like. It’s interesting, maybe telling, that the people who were sort of the staunchest anti-abortion voices have not seemed to do well in this moment, but let’s be real. Trump is the far-and-away front-runner here. It’s most important to examine Trump. And he’s sort of trying to have it both ways. He’s both touting his anti-abortion bona fides by talking about appointing the justices to the Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade, taking credit for that. And at the same time sort of pushing this line of, “Oh, we’ll strike some sort of compromise.” He really talks up exemptions for rape and incest, which, by the way, a lot of anti-abortion groups don’t want those. And so he’s sort of speaking out of both sides of his mouth, but, at least according to the polls, it seems to be working.

Rovner: Yeah, maybe that’s the answer for Republicans is tell everybody what you think they want them to know. I guess we will see going forward. Well, I want to move on. I’m calling this next segment, “Getting Old Sucks: Ask Me How I Know.” I want to start with a joint project that KFF Health News has out this week with The New York Times called “Dying Broke.” It’s about, and stop me if you’ve heard me say this before, the fact that the U.S. has no policy to help pay for long-term care, save for Medicaid, which only pays if you basically bankrupt yourself and your family.

There is a lot in this series, and I highly recommend it, but one of the things that jumped out to me is that the cost of long-term care has risen so much faster than incomes that even if you started saving for retirement in your 20s — I started saving for retirement in my 20s — you’d still be unlikely to have enough to self-insure for long-term care when you’re 75 or 80. Joanne, you’ve spent as much time as I have, probably more, writing about our lack of a long-term care policy. Anything jump out at you from this project?

Kenen: It was a terrific, terrific story, and it brought to life that even people who are definitely what you would think of as economically comfortable, it’s not enough. It’s just the luck of the draw, right? I mean, if you die fast, you can at least leave money to your kids. If you die slow, you can’t. It was a really good story. But what I always am left with when I read these stories is it doesn’t make a difference. Congress does not want to deal with this. Julie and I actually did a panel for a health group a few weeks ago, and one of the state … someone from California came up to talk about us and asked, “Why doesn’t the United States have a long-term care policy? I’m going to change that.” And we were trying to be polite, but it was like, “OK, good luck with that.” And this is not a partisan issue. Republicans and Democrats both get old and Republicans and Democrats both end up needing long-term care, whether it’s in the nursing home or assistance in your own home. Republicans and Democrats both get Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia. They both get disabled. And we have a government that just plugs up its ears because it costs so much money and it’s an entitlement and they just don’t even want to deal with it. And generation after generation, it’s a disaster. It’s inhumane.

Rovner: And, of course, there was this brief effort in the Affordable Care Act with the CLASS Act that everybody was very excited …

Kenen: To nibble around the edges of it. The CLASS Act was good, but it wasn’t even solving the problem.

Rovner: And it went away because they discovered that even that was going to be too expensive. It could not be self-sustaining. And that’s been the problem with the private long-term care insurance market too, that you basically can’t get private long-term care insurance anymore because insurers cannot afford to sell it. They lose too much money on it, and therefore it would be too expensive if they actually charged what they needed to to even break even.

Kenen: Right. And there is an idea circulating, but it’s not getting any traction. It’s circulated in the past too, a joint approach, a reinsurance approach, that you’d try to strengthen the private long-term care insurance market, which is very broken. You’d try to fix that, but you wouldn’t expect the private insurance market to do the whole problem, so that there’d be reinsurance from the government. So for people who had maybe, I don’t know exactly how it works, say a year or two of expenses that private insurance would kick in and we would make that market work better and be there when you needed it. But then if you were somebody who had multiple years and you exhausted that benefit, there would be a backup entitlement.

Rovner: But I’ve heard this talked about for at least 10 years, and it’s never gone anywhere.

Kenen: It’s revived and it’s not getting … I don’t think it has a sponsor in this Congress. It did in the last Congress. There’s no discussion. There’s no … a lot of people think that Medicare actually pays for nursing homes, and then that’s a pretty big surprise because it only pays for very limited … it pays, like if you have surgery and you need some rehab at a nursing home for, what is it? Is it 12 weeks? I forget what it is, but it’s short-term. It’s a couple of months. It’s not dementia care. And even the other thing is when you read about the cost of long-term care, that’s just the room and board, that doesn’t include your doctors’ bills, your medication, clothing, personal aide, because people who are complicated and need a lot of care often need a personal aide in addition to the staff. It’s just a phenomenal amount of money. My kids don’t understand when I say we need to save money, they say, “Don’t you have enough?” And no, nobody has enough. Bill Gates has enough.

Rovner: Yeah, Warren Buffett has enough. Well, so, as I mentioned, one of the big problems with long-term care is that there’s essentially no private insurance for it anymore because it’s so expensive and because so many people end up needing it. That’s very different from Medicare Advantage, where insurers are and have been making lots of money providing benefits that would otherwise be paid for by the federal government. But Rachel, some of your colleagues have discovered that, and in at least some cases, those insurers are making all that money because they’re denying care to patients who need it. This is your extra credit this week, but I want you to talk about it now.

Cohrs: I’ll talk about it early. Yes. So my colleagues, Casey Ross and Bob Herman have been digging into the role of algorithms in insurance decisions for the past year. And they just released a new story this week about — with internal documents of a subsidiary called naviHealth of UnitedHealth — showing that the company was instructing managers to keep care timelines for a really expensive rehab that older people, I think, need after having injuries or something like that within 1% of the time that this algorithm was predicting, regardless of what their actual human doctors were saying. And truly, the stories behind these care denials are just really horrifying … of somebody who had a knee surgery and was expected to slide on their butt down the stairs because they weren’t paying for rehab. Families who’ve had to pay tens of thousands of dollars out of their own pocket after this care was denied because they saw that their loved one clearly needed money, and there was a class-action lawsuit filed, then after the story was published, by people who had deceased relatives who had UnitedHealthcare MA plans, and were denied rehab and later died. And so I think it’s just really eye-opening as to the actual instructions by managers inside the company saying that this is your expectation, and if you’re not keeping coverage care rehab timelines within this 1% margin, then you aren’t performing up to our standards.

Rovner: So this is basically AI being used to deny care. We keep talking about AI and health care. This is it, right? This is an algorithm that says, “Person who goes into rehab with these kinds of problems should only need 19 days.” And if you need more than that, tough. That’s essentially what’s going on here, right?

Cohrs: And the lawsuit did highlight as well that when people did appeal, they won most of the time, but most people didn’t appeal, and the company knew that. And so I think that was also part of the lawsuit that came up. It’s hard to prove intent with these things or what is a denial based on an algorithm? But I think this lays out the case in as explicit terms as we’ve ever seen from the internal side.

Rovner: It does. All right, well let us move on from Medicare to Medicaid, the unwinding — involving reviewing everyone on the program to make sure they’re still eligible now that the pandemic emergency has expired — continues with more than 10 million people now having lost their coverage, according to the tracker being updated by my KFF colleagues. And state Medicaid directors are predicting a year-over-year decrease in enrollment of 8.6%, which is pretty dramatically large. We also know that more than 70% of those being disenrolled may in fact still be eligible, but the state was unable to locate them or they didn’t file the right paperwork. Ironically, even with a much smaller caseload, state Medicaid spending is likely to rise because the additional payments that were provided by the federal government also expired at the end of the public health emergency. So states are basically having to pay more per enrollee than they were paying even when they were leaving everybody on the rolls. Advocates have been complaining all year that the Biden administration isn’t doing enough to ensure that states aren’t tossing people off who should still be covered. Has anything changed on that front? I know that the administration is sort of caught between this rock and a hard place. They don’t want to come out guns blazing and have states saying that they’re making this politicized. On the other hand, the numbers are getting pretty big and there’s increasing evidence that a lot of the people who are being relieved of their coverage should still have it.

Ollstein: Including a lot of children who absolutely did not do anything wrong in this situation. And so it kind of reminds me of some stuff during covid, where the Biden administration did not want to get into a public fight with GOP-controlled states and was trying to negotiate behind the scenes to get the policies they wanted to protect people. But at the same time, not wanting that open confrontation means that a lot of this is continuing to go on unchecked. And so the data is coming out showing that a lot of people who are losing coverage are not reenrolling in other coverage. Some are, but a lot are not. And so I think now that we’re getting, going to get into Obamacare open enrollment, I think that’ll be really key to see — can we scoop up a lot of these newly uninsured people?

Rovner: And we did, we saw the administration put out a press release saying that the early part of open enrollment has seemed very large, much larger-than-expected enrollment. And you kind of wonder, I’m kind of wondering, how many of those people were people who got kicked off of Medicaid. And, of course, we know that when people got kicked off of Medicaid, they were supposed to be steered to the Affordable Care Act, for which they would’ve obviously been eligible. But I’m wondering whether some of those people didn’t get steered and now that they’re seeing that enrollment is open, it’s like, “Oh, maybe I can get this.” I have not seen anybody answer that question, but it’s certainly a question in my mind.

Cohrs: Right. And coverage is more affordable as well because subsidies from the covid-era spending bills do extend through 2025. But again, people might see increases in costs once those end, if Congress doesn’t extend them. So even if we do see some people moving from Medicaid to ACA enrollment, then there’s a chance that they could see spikes in a pretty short amount of time.

Rovner: Yeah, I’ll be curious to see as open enrollment continues, whether they can break down where some of those people are coming from. All right, now it is time for “This Week in Health Misinformation.” I have chosen a KFF Health News story, which is also my extra credit this week, from science journalist Amy Maxmen, called “How Lawmakers in Texas and Florida Undermine Covid Vaccination Efforts.” It seems that in Texas health departments and other organizations funded by the states are now prohibited from advertising or recommending covid vaccines or even saying that they are available, unless that’s in conjunction with telling them about other vaccines that are available, too. In Florida, as we have talked about here before, the health department has issued specific guidance recommending against the new covid vaccine for children and teens and now men under the age of 40. Unless you think this hasn’t had any impact before the vaccines were available, Democrats and Republicans were dying of covid in roughly equal proportions in Florida and Ohio, according to a study published earlier this summer in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.

But by the end of 2021, which was the first full year that covid vaccines were widely available, Republicans had an excess death rate of 43% higher than Democrats. So medical misinformation has consequences. 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. Rachel, you’ve done yours already. Alice, why don’t you go next?

Ollstein: Sure. So I have a very depressing one out of The New York Times by Jack Healy and it’s called “They Wanted to Get Sober. They Got a Nightmare Instead.” And it is about these fraudulent, scammy addiction treatment facilities in Arizona, but it notes that they do exist in other states as well, that have been bilking the state Medicaid program for just millions and millions and millions of dollars and providing inadequate or nonexistent treatment to really vulnerable people in need, with very deadly consequences. And the places profiled in this piece really went after Native American folks specifically. So very sad report, but it sounds like more attention on this is leading to the state cracking down on places like this. So, hopefully, we’ll make some progress there.

Rovner: Yeah, quite a story, Joanne.

Kenen: This is a story, part of an ongoing series from Mississippi Today, in conjunction with ProPublica’s local reporting network: “Mississippi Jailed More Than 800 People Awaiting Psychiatric Treatment in a Year. Just One Jail Meets State Standards.” It’s by Isabella Taft. In Mississippi, if you’re unfortunate enough to have such serious mental illness that a court orders you to have treatment and there’s no room in a state hospital, they put you in jail while you wait for a room in state hospitals. And sometimes they’re housed in these facilities or rooms that are meant for people with severe mental illness, but they’re awful. And sometimes they’re just housed with a regular prison population. And the sheriffs say, “Wait a minute, it’s not really our problem to be housing … state hospitals have to fix this.” And they have a point! But in the meantime, that’s who they have. That’s where they end up. They end up in these jails, these local jails, and the sheriffs are responsible. And only one hospital meets the state certification for what these people need.

And some of these stays. They’re not like two days, they can be prolonged. There’ve been a lot of deaths, there’ve been a lot of suicides. It’s a really pretty disturbing situation. It’s sort of the mental health crisis and the mental health provider shortage and countrywide really writ large among some of the most vulnerable people.

Rovner: All right, well, we’ve had four grim extra credits this week, but they’re all good stories. 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 this week to Zach Dyer for filling in as our technical guru while Francis [Ying] takes some much-deserved time off. We’re going to take next week off, too, for the Thanksgiving holiday. As always, you can email us your comments or questions or your suggestions for our medical misinformation segment. We are at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and Threads. Alice?

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein on X, and at AliceMiranda on Bluesky.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs: I’m @rachelcohrs on X and rchohrsreporter on Threads.

Rovner: Joanne.

Kenen: @JoanneKenen on X, and I’m increasingly switched to Threads at @joannekenen1.

Rovner: We will be back in your feed in two weeks. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Zach Dyer
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.

Autumn is for pumpkins and raking leaves — and open enrollment for health plans. Medicare’s annual open enrollment began Oct. 1 and runs through Dec. 7. It will be followed shortly by the Affordable Care Act’s annual open enrollment, which starts Nov. 1 and runs until Jan. 15 in most states. But what used to be a fairly simple annual task — renewing an existing health plan or choosing a new one — has become a confusing, time-consuming mess for many, due to our convoluted health care system.

Meanwhile, Ohio will be the next state where voters will decide whether to protect abortion rights. Those on both sides of the debate are gearing up for the November vote, with anti-abortion forces hoping to break a losing streak of state ballot measures related to abortion since the 2022 overturn of Roe v. Wade.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne'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 U.S. House of Representatives has been without an elected speaker since Oct. 4. That means lawmakers cannot conduct any legislative business, with several important health bills pending — including renewal of the popular international HIV/AIDS program, PEPFAR.
• Open enrollment is not just for people looking to change health insurance plans. Plans themselves change, and those who do nothing risk continuing in a plan that no longer meets their needs.
• A new round of lawsuits has sprung up related to “abortion reversals,” a controversial practice in which a patient, having taken the first dose of a two-dose abortion medication regimen, takes a high dose of the hormone progesterone rather than the second medication that completes the abortion. In Colorado, a Catholic-affiliated health clinic says a state law banning the practice violates its religious rights, while in California, the state attorney general is suing two faith-based chains that operate pregnancy “crisis centers,” alleging that by advertising the procedure they are making “fraudulent and misleading” claims.
• The latest survey of employer health insurance by KFF shows annual family premiums are again escalating rapidly — up an average of 7% from 2022 to 2023, with even larger increases expected for 2024. It’s not clear whether the already high cost of providing insurance to workers — an annual family policy now averages just under $24,000 — will dampen companies’ enthusiasm for providing the benefit.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Arielle Zionts, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” feature about the wide cost variation of chemotherapy from state to state. If you have an outrageous or inscrutable medical you’d like to send us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: NPR’s “How Gas Utilities Used Tobacco Tactics to Avoid Gas Stove Regulations,” by Jeff Brady.

Lauren Weber: KFF Health News’ “Doctors Abandon a Diagnosis Used to Justify Police Custody Deaths. It Might Live On, Anyway,” by Markian Hawryluk and Renuka Rayasam.

Joanne Kenen: The Washington Post’s “How Lunchables Ended Up on School Lunch Trays,” by Lenny Bernstein, Lauren Weber, and Dan Keating.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: KFF Health News’ “Pregnant and Addicted: Homeless Women See Hope in Street Medicine,” by Angela Hart.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• The Washington Post’s “The Post Spent the Past Year Examining U.S. Life Expectancy. Here’s What We Found,” by The Washington Post staff.
• The Washington Post’s “Primary Care Saves Lives. Here’s Why It’s Failing Americans,” by Frances Stead Sellers.
• Vox’s “Vox Launches New Guide to Open Enrollment,” by Vox Communications.
• Politico Magazine’s “How Dobbs Triggered a ‘Vasectomy Revolution,’” by Jesús A. Rodríguez.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Open Enrollment Mixing Bowl

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: The Open Enrollment Mixing BowlEpisode Number: 319Published: Oct. 19, 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, Oct. 19, 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 Alice Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning,

Rovner: Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello.

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with Arielle Zionts, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” about how chemotherapy can cost five times more in one state than in another. But first this week’s news. So, it’s Oct. 19, the House of Representatives is still without a speaker. That’s 2½ weeks now. That means legislation can’t move. Are there health care items that are starting to stack up? And what would it mean if the House ends up with an anti-federal government conservative like Rep. Jim Jordan, who, at least as of this moment, is not yet the speaker and does not yet look like he has the votes?

Ollstein: So in terms of unfinished health care business, the three big things we are tracking are things that actually lapsed at the end of September. Congress did manage to keep the government open, but they allowed three big health care things to fall by the wayside, and those are PEPFAR, the global HIV/AIDS program, the SUPPORT Act, the programs for opioids and addiction, and PAHPA, the public health, pandemics, biohazards big bill. And so those …

Rovner: I think one of those P’s stands for “preparedness,” right?

Ollstein: Exactly, yes. But it’s related to pandemics, and you would think after all we just went through that that would be more of a priority, but here we are. The reauthorization of all three of those is just dangling out there and it’s unclear if and when Congress can act on them. There is some level of bipartisan support for all of them, but that is what is stacking up, and nothing is really happening on those fronts, according to my conversations with sources on the Hill because everything has just ground to a halt because of the speaker mess.

Rovner: And, of course, we’re less than a month away from the current continuing resolution running out again, and we may go through — who knows? They may get a new speaker and then he may lose his job or her job once they try to keep the government open in November. It’s a mess. I’ve never seen anything like this …

Kenen: Also, in addition to those three very political … even public health and pandemics are now politics … that Alice correctly pointed out, these three huge ideological, how are we going to get them reauthorized in the next 30 days? But there’s also more routine things that are not controversial but are caught up in this such as community health center funding, which has bipartisan support, but they need their apropos and all that stuff. So in addition to these sort of red-blue fights, there’s just, how do we keep the doors open for people who need access to health care? That’s not the only program. There are many day-to-day programs that like everything else in the government are up in the air.

Rovner: I mean, we should point out this is unprecedented. The only other time the House has been without a speaker this long was one year when they didn’t come in at the beginning of the Congress until later in January. It’s literally the only time. There’s never been a mid-session speakerless House. So everything that happens from here is unprecedented. Well, meanwhile, if you have turned on a TV in the past week, you already know this, but Medicare open enrollment began last Sunday, Oct. 15. To be clear, when you first become eligible for Medicare, you can sign up anytime in the three months before or after your birthday. But if you enroll in a private Medicare Advantage plan or a private prescription drug plan, and most people are in one or the other or both, open enrollment is when you can add or change coverage. This used to be pretty straightforward, but it’s only gotten more confusing as private plans have proliferated. This year the Biden administration is trying to fight back against some of the misleading marketing efforts. Politico reports that the government has rejected some 300 different ads. Is that enough to quell the confusion? I’m already seeing ads and kind of look at it, like, “I don’t think that says what it means to say.”

Weber: Yeah, we see this every year. It’s a ton of ads. It’s a barrage of ads that all say, “Hey, this plan is going to get you X, Y, Z, and that’s better than traditional Medicare.” But you got to read the fine print, and I think that is the big thing for all the folks that are looking at this every time. Open enrollment is very confusing, and a lot of times people are trying to sell you things that are not what they appear. So it does appear that there has been more movement to crack down on those ads. But look, the family members I talked to are still confused, so I don’t know how much that’s proliferating down quite yet.

Kenen: And even if the ads were honest, our health system is so confusing. Even if you’re at an employer health system. All of us are employed, all of us get insurance at work, and none of us really know we have made the best choice. I mean, you need a crystal ball to know what illness you and your relatives are going to get that year, and what the copays and deductibles for that specific condition. I’ve never been sure. I have three choices. They’re all decent, whether it’s the best for me and my family, with all that I know about health care, I still don’t know I made the best choice ’cause I don’t have a crystal ball or not one that works.

Rovner: Right. I also have choices, and I did my mom’s Medicare for years, as Joanne remembers …

Kenen: You did a great piece on that one.

Rovner: … this is the way I remember it. I did do a piece on that. Long time ago, when they were first starting the prescription drug benefit and you had to sort of sign up via a computer, and in 2006, not that many seniors knew how to use computers. At least we’re sort of over that, but there’s still complaints about the official website Medicare.gov, which does a pretty good job. It’s just got an awful lot of steps. It’s one of those things, it’s like, “OK, set aside two hours,” and that’s if you know what you’re doing to do this. So meanwhile, if this isn’t all confusing enough, open enrollment for the Affordable Care Act opens in two weeks, and while Medicare open enrollment ends Dec. 7, ACA enrollment goes through Jan. 15 in most, but not every, state. In both cases, if you get your insurance through Medicare or through the ACA, you should look to see what changes your plan might be making. I should say also, if it’s open enrollment for your employer insurance, plans make changes pretty much every year. So you may end up, even if you’re in the same plan, with a plan that you don’t like or a plan that you don’t like as much as you like it now. This is insanely complicated, as you point out, for everybody with insurance. Is there any way to make it easier?

Kenen: There’s no politically palatable way to make it easier. And then things they’ve done to try to make it easier, like consistent claims forms, which most of us don’t have to fill out anymore. Most of that’s done online, but they’re not using consistent claim forms and there’s nothing simple and there’s nothing that’s getting simpler. And we’re all savvy …

Rovner: It’s what keeps our “Bill of the Month” project in business.

Kenen: Right. We’re all pretty savvy and none of us are smart enough to solve every health care problem of us and our family.

Rovner: It’s one of those things where compromise actually makes for complexity. When policymakers can’t do something they really want to do, they do something smaller and more incremental. And so what you end up with is this built on, in every which way, kind of health care system that nobody knows how it works.

Kenen: Like the year I hurt both a finger and a toe. And I had a deductible for the finger, but not for the toe. Explain that!

Rovner: I assume it was in and out of network or not even.

Kenen: No. They were both in network. All of my digits are in network.

Weber: I just got a covid test bill from 2020 that I had previously knocked down by calling, but they rebilled me again. And because I am a savvy health care reporter, I was like, “I’m not paying this. I know that I don’t have to pay this.” But it took probably 10 hours to resolve, I mean, and that’s not even picking insurance. So I’m just saying it’s an incredibly complex marketplace. Shout-out to Vox who had a really nice series that tried to make it easier for people to understand the differences between Medicare and Medicare Advantage, open enrollment, what that all means. If you haven’t seen that and you’re confused about your insurance options, I would highly recommend it.

Rovner: And I will link to the Vox series, which is really good, but it was kind of looking at it. I mean, they had to write six different stories. It’s like that’s how confusing things are, which is really kind of sad here, but we will move on because we’re not going to solve this one today. So speaking of things that are complicated and getting more so, let’s turn to reproductive health. Alice, the big event that people on both sides are waiting for — one of those events, at least — is a ballot measure in Ohio that would establish a state constitutional right to abortion. So far, every state ballot measure we’ve seen has gone in favor of the abortions rights side. How are abortion opponents trying to flip the script here?

Ollstein: So I was in Ohio a couple of weeks ago and was really focused on that very question, just what are they doing differently? How are they learning lessons from all of the losses last year? And why do they think Ohio will be any different? I will say, since my piece came out, there was the first poll I’ve seen of how people are approaching the November referendum, and it showed overwhelming support for the abortion rights side, just like in every other state. So have that color, what I’m about to say next, which is that the anti-abortion side thinks they can win because they have a lot of structural factors working in their favor. They have the governor of Ohio really actively campaigning against the amendment. So that’s in contrast to [Gov. Gretchen] Whitmer in Michigan last year, campaigning actively for it. When you have a fairly popular governor, that does have an impact, they’re a known trusted voice to many. Also …

Rovner: And the governor of Ohio is also a former senator and I mean a really well-known guy.

Ollstein: Yeah. Yeah, exactly. You just have the entire state structure working to defeat this amendment. They tried in a special election in August to change the rules. That didn’t work. Now, you just have all of these top officials using their bully pulpit and their platforms to try to steer the vote in the anti-abortion direction. Also, the actual campaign itself is trying to learn lessons from last year and doing a few things differently. They’re going really aggressively after the African American vote, particularly through Black churches. And so that’s not something I saw in the states I reported on last year, and they’re really aggressively going after the student vote. And I went to a student campus event at Ohio State that the anti-abortion side was holding, and it seemed pretty effective. There was a ton of confusion among the students. A lot of the students are like, “Wait, didn’t we just vote on this?” referring to the August special. They said, “Wait a minute, which side means yes, and which side means no?” There was just rampant confusion, and it wasn’t helped … I observed the anti-abortion side, telling people some misleading things about what the amendment would and wouldn’t do. And so all of that could definitely have an impact. But like I said, since my story came out, a poll came out showing really strong support for the abortion rights amendment, which would block the state’s six-week ban, which is now held up in court, but the court leans pretty far to the right. This would block that from going back into effect potentially.

Rovner: Ohio, the ultimate swing state, probably the reddest swing state in the country. But Ohio is not the only state having an off-year election next month. Virginia doesn’t have an abortion measure on the ballot, but its entire state House and Senate are up for reelection. And from almost every ad I’ve seen from Democrats, it mentions abortion, and there’s a lot of ads here in the Washington, D.C., area for some of the Virginia elections. Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who’s not on the ballot this year, thinks he has a way of talking about abortion that might give his side the edge. What are we going to be able to tell from the ultimate makeup of the very narrowly divided Virginia Legislature when this is all said and done?

Kenen: It won’t be veto-proof. Unlike North Carolina now, even if it’s the Democrats hold the one chamber they have or win both of them, and it’s really close. These are very closely divided, so we really don’t know how it’s going to turn out. But I mean he …

Rovner: One year it was so close that they literally had to draw rocks out of a bowl.

Kenen: Yeah, right. There’s highly unlikely that there will be a scenario where there’s a really strongly Democratic legislature with a Republican governor. That’s not likely. What’s likely is a very narrowly divided, and we don’t know who has the edge in which chamber. So the governor can’t just do things unilaterally, but how it plays out. And Youngkin’s backing a 15-week ban with some exceptions after that for life and health. A year ago, that would’ve seemed like an extreme measure. And now it seems moderate, I mean compared to zero weeks and no exceptions. So Virginia’s a red state, it’s swung blue. It’s now reddish again, I mean, it’s not a swing state so much in presidential, but on the ground, it’s a swing state. And …

Rovner: But I guess that’s what I was getting at was Youngkin’s trying to sort of paint his support as something moderate …

Kenen: That’s how he’s been trying to thread this needle ’cause he comes across as moderate and then he comes across as more conservative. And on abortion, what’s moderate now? I mean, in the current landscape among Republican governors, you could say his is moderate, but Alice follows the politics more closely, but half the country doesn’t think that’s moderate.

Rovner: If the Democrats retain or win both houses of the legislature, I mean, will that send us a message about abortion or is that just going to send us a message about Virginia being a very narrowly divided state?

Ollstein: I think both. I think Joanne is right in that the polling and the voting record over the last year reflect that a lot of people are not buying the idea that 15 weeks is moderate. And a lot of polls show that when presented the choice between a total ban and total protections, even people who are uncomfortable with the idea of abortions later in pregnancy opt for total protections. And so you’ve seen that play out. At the same time, there’s a lot of people on the right who correctly argue that the vast majority of abortions happen before 15 weeks, and so 15 weeks is not going far enough. And they’re not in favor of that as so-called compromise or moderate policy. And so …

Rovner: There are no compromises in abortion.

Ollstein: Truly, truly.

Rovner: If we’ve learned anything, we’ve learned that.

Ollstein: And when you try to please everyone, sometimes you please no one, as we’ve seen with both candidates and policies that try to thread this needle. And so I think it will be a really interesting test because yes, right now the legislature is sort of the firewall between what the governor wants to do on abortion, and whether that will continue to be true is a really interesting question.

Rovner: Meanwhile, we have dueling abortion reversal lawsuits going on in both Colorado and California. Abortion reversal, for those who don’t follow all the jargon, is the concept of interrupting the two-medication regime for abortion by pill. And instead of taking the second medication, the pregnant person takes large doses of the hormone progesterone. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says there is no evidence that this works to reverse a medication abortion and that it’s unethical for doctors to prescribe it. But in Colorado, a Christian health clinic is charging that a state law that bans the practice offering abortion reversal violates their freedom of religion. In California, it’s actually the opposite. The state attorney general is suing a pregnancy crisis center for false advertising, promoting the practice. Alice, how big a deal could this fight over abortion reversal become? And that’s assuming that the pill remains widely available, which is going to be decided by yet another lawsuit.

Ollstein: Yeah, absolutely. Although it’ll be a long time before we know whether mifepristone is legally available on a federal basis. But I’ve been watching this bubble up for years, but it’s up till now been more of a rhetorical fight in terms of: “Abortion reversal is a thing.” “No, it’s not.” “Yes, it is.” “No, it’s not.” “Here’s my expert saying it is.” “Here’s my expert saying it’s not.” But this is really moving it into a more sort of concrete, legal realm, and not just rhetoric. And so it is an escalation, and it will be interesting to see. Mainstream health care organizations do not support this practice. There was a clinical trial of it going on that was actually called off because of the potential dangers involved and risks to participants …

Rovner: Of doing the abortion reversal method …

Ollstein: Exactly. Yes.

Rovner: … of trying to interrupt a medication abortion.

Ollstein: Yes. This is really on the cutting edge of where medicine and politics are clashing right now.

Rovner: Yeah, we’ll see how it, and, of course, if they end up in different places, this could be something else that ends up in front of the Supreme Court. And this is, I think, less of an argument about religious freedom than an argument about the ability of medical organizations to determine what is or isn’t standard of practice based on evidence. I mean, I guess in some ways it becomes the same thing as the broader mifepristone case, where it’s like, do you trust the FDA to determine what’s safe? And now, it’s like, do you trust ACOG and the AMA [American Medical Association] and other organizations of doctors to decide what should be allowed?

Kenen: I mean, progesterone has medical purposes, it’s used to prevent miscarriages, but it’s off-label. It goes into these other questions, which all of us have written about — ivermectin, and who gets legal substances, and how do you use them properly, and what’s the danger? And there’s a bunch of them.

Weber: I think the fight over standard of care has really become the next frontier in medical lawsuits. I mean, we’ve all written about this, but ivermectin, obviously, misinformation, prescribing hydroxychloroquine, all of these things are now getting into the legal field. Is that the standard of care? What is the standard of care and how does that play out? So I agree with you. I think this is going to end up by the Supreme Court and I think it has much broader implications than just for mifepristone and abortion drugs too.

Rovner: Yeah, I do too. Well, finally, in an update I did not have on my post-Roe Bingo card, it appears that vasectomies are up in some states, including Oregon, where abortion is still legal, and Oklahoma, where it’s not very widely available. Are men finally taking more responsibility for not getting the women they have sex with pregnant? That would be a big sea change.

Ollstein: Yeah, we’ve been hearing anecdotally that this has been the case definitely since Dobbs and even before that as abortion restrictions were mounting. Politico Magazine did a nice piece on this last year profiling vasectomy [in] a mobile van. And it’s also just fascinating and a lot of people have been highlighting just how few restrictions on vasectomies there are compared to more permanent sterilization for women: no waiting periods, no fighting about it. And so it does provide an interesting contrast there.

Rovner: I know there have been stories over the years about how the demand for vasectomies goes up right before the NCAA tournament in March and April because men figure that they can just recuperate while watching basketball.

Ollstein: I thought that was a myth then I looked it up and it’s absolutely true.

Rovner: It is absolutely true.

Kenen: I mean, it also seems to be more common among older men who’ve had a family and because it’s permanent, I mean usually permanent. It’s usually permanent and right, it’s one thing to decide after a certain point in your life when you’ve already had your kids. I mean, it’s not going to be an option for younger men who haven’t had children.

Rovner: It’s also reliable, it is one of those things that you don’t have to worry about.

Kenen: Even though I looked up the figures once, it’s a very, very low failure rate, but it’s not zero.

Rovner: True. We are moving on to what I call this week in declining life expectancy. I’m glad that Lauren is back with us because The Washington Post has published the next pieces of its deep dive into the U.S. population’s declining life expectancy. And we’re going to start with a story that was co-written by Lauren, but that is Joanne’s extra credit this week. So Joanne, you start, and then Lauren, you can chime in.

Kenen: OK. It’s “How Lunchables Ended Up on School Lunch Trays.” For those of you who have never been in a supermarket or who have closed your eyes in certain aisles, Lunchables are heavily processed, encased in plastic, small lunchboxes of a — it’s not even much of a meal or small — which you can buy in the supermarket. And now two of them have been modified so that they’re allowed in schools as healthy enough …

Rovner: They’re quote, unquote, “balanced” because it’s a little piece of meat and a little piece of cheese.

Kenen: They have so far just a turkey cheese option that qualifies for schools and a pizza that qualifies for schools. Not a whole pizza, a little … but the kid in the story, the second grader in the story, didn’t even know it was turkey. It has 14 ingredients. He thought it was ham. So I mean, that just sort of says it, but it’s beyond the lack of nutrition, it started out sort of like what is this child putting in his mouth and why is it called school lunch? But the story was deeper because it was a very long investigation by Lauren and Dan Keating on the relationship between the food industry, the trade group, and the government regulation. And just say, it leaves a lot to be desired. And you should all read the story only because you can click on the story of the oversized Cheez-It.

I mean, it’s a fake one, but the replica of this as big as the planet Mars. I mean, it’s just this huge Cheez-It. And it’s a really good story because it’s overprocessed food is really bad for us. And I mean, scientists have matched the rise of this overprocessed stuff that began as food and the rise of obesity in America. And it’s not just taking the salt out of it, which they’re doing, the sodium out of or adding a little calcium or something to these processed foods. They’re ultra-processed foods, and that’s not what our body needs.

Rovner: So, Lauren, I mean, how does this relate to the rest of this declining life expectancy project and what else is there to come?

Weber: This is our big tranche of stories. I mean, we should have some follows, but that’s it. And well, Joanne, thank you for the kind words on it. We really appreciate that. But I mean, I think the point that she made that I want to highlight for this in general is what was wild in investigating this story is pizza sauce is a vegetable in the U.S. when it comes to school lunch and french fries are also a vegetable. And that’s really all you need to sum up how the industry influence in Congress has resulted in what kids are having for their school lunch today. One of the things we got to do for the story is go to the national School Nutrition Association conference, which is where we saw the giant Cheez-It. And it’s this massive trade fair of all these companies where they throw parties for the school nutrition personnel to try all the different food. And it’s wild to see in real life. And what Joanne made a good point of about ultra-processed food and what the rules do right now is they don’t consider the integrity of the food. They set limits on calories and sodium, but they don’t consider what kids are actually eating. And so you end up with these ultra-processed foods that growing body of research suggests really have some negative health consequences for you. And so, as Joanne talked about, and as our series gets into, obesity is a real problem in this country, and obesity has huge, long-lasting, life-shortening impacts. One of the folks we talked to for the piece, Michael Moss, said, he worries that processed food is the new tobacco because he feels like smoking’s going down, but obesity’s going up. And something he said to me that didn’t make the piece, but I thought was really interesting is that at some point he thinks there’ll be some sort of class-action lawsuit against ultra-processed food, much like a cigarette lawsuit-

Rovner: Like with tobacco.

Weber: Like a tobacco lawsuit, like an opioid lawsuit. I think that’s kind of interesting to think about, but this was just one of the many life expectancy stories. I want to shout out my colleague Frances Stead Sellers’ story, which talked about how it compared is brilliant. It compared two sisters with rheumatoid arthritis, one who lives in the U.S. and one who lives in Portugal. They’re both from Portugal. The one in Portugal has all this fabulous primary health care. The doctors even call her on Christmas and they’re like, “We’re worried you’re going to have chocolate cherries with brandy that would interact with your medicine.” Whereas the one in the U.S. has to go to the ER all the time because she doesn’t have steady health care and she can’t seem to make it work, ends meet. She doesn’t have a primary health care system. She’s a disjointed doctor system. And the end of the story is the sister in the U.S. who has this severe health problem is moving to Portugal because it’s just so much better there for primary care. And I think that gets at a lot of what our stories on life expectancy have talked about, which is that primary care, preventative care in the U.S. is not a priority and it results in a lot of downstream consequences that are shortening America’s life expectancy.

Rovner: Well, I hope when this project is all published that you put all the stories together and send them to every school of public health in the United States. That would be fairly useful. I bet public health professors would appreciate it.

Weber: Thank you.

Rovner: So it is mid-October, that means it is time for the annual KFF survey of employer health insurance. And for the first time since the pandemic, most premiums are up markedly, an average of 7% from 2022 to 2023 with indications of even larger increases coming for 2024. Now, to people like me and Joanne, who’ve been doing this for a long time, lived through years of double-digit increases in the early 2000s, 7% doesn’t seem that big, but today, the average family health insurance premium is about the same as the cost of a small car. So is there a breaking point for the employer health system? I mean, one of the things — to go back to what we were talking about at the beginning — one of the compromised ways we’ve kept the system functional is by allowing these pieces to remain in pieces. Employers have wanted to offer health insurance. It’s an important fringe benefit to help attract workers. But you’re paying $25,000 a year for a family plan, unless you’re a really big company. And even if you are a really big company, that’s an awful lot of money.

Kenen: One of the things that struck me is, we’re at a point when we’ve had a lot of strikes and reactivated labor movement, but 20 years ago, the fights were about the cost of health care. The famous Verizon strike. They were big strikes that were about health care, the cost. And right now, I’m not really hearing that too much. I’m sure it’s part of the conversation, but it’s not the top. It’s not the headline of what these strikes are about. They’re about salaries mostly and working conditions with nurses and ratios and things like that. I’m not hearing health care costs, but I sort of think we will because, yes, we are being subsidized by our employers, most of us. But you said, “What’s the breaking point?” Well, apparently there isn’t one. We’ve asked ourselves that every single year. And when do we stop doing it? No one has a good answer for that. And related is to what Lauren was just talking about, life expectancy. The lack of primary care in this country, in addition to improving our health, it would probably bring down cost. We used to spend 6 cents on the dollar on primary care, 6 cents. Other countries spend a lot more. Now, we’re down to 4.5 cents. So the stuff that keeps you well and spots problems and has somebody who recognizes when something’s going wrong in you because you’re their patient as opposed to … there’s nothing. I don’t mean that urgent care doesn’t have a place. It does, but it’s not the same thing as somebody who gives you continuity of care. So these are all related. I’ll stop. It’s a mess. Someone else can say it’s a mess now.

Rovner: It’s definitely a mess and we are not going to fix it today, but we’ll keep trying.

Kenen: Maybe next week.

Rovner: All right. Yeah, maybe next week. That is this week’s news. Now, we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Arielle Zionts. And then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast my KFF Health News colleague Arielle Zionts who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” installment. Arielle, welcome to the podcast.

Arielle Zionts: Thanks for having me.

Rovner: So this month’s patient is grappling with a grave cancer diagnosis, a toddler, and some inexplicable bills from hospitals in two different states. Tell us a little bit about her.

Zionts: Sure. So Emily Gebel is from Alaska and has a husband and two young kids. She home-schools them. She really likes the outdoors, reading, foraging, and she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Just something that makes me so sad is she found out when she was basically breastfeeding because she felt a lump. And then when she was diagnosed, her baby was asleep in her arms when she got that call. So it just really shows what it’s like to be a mom and to have cancer. She was living in Juneau at the time. Her friends who’ve had cancer suggested [they] wanted to go to a bigger city. Whether it’s true or not, the idea was, OK, bigger cities are going to have bigger care. Juneau is not a big city, and you cannot drive there. You have to take a ferry or you have to fly in, and this is the capital of Alaska. So that might …

Rovner: Yes, I’ve been there. It’s very picturesque and very small and very hard to get to.

Zionts: Yeah, so that might be surprising for some people. The closest major American city is Seattle. So she went there for her surgery and then she decided to have chemo, and she opted for this special type of chemo that uses lower dose, but more frequent doses. The idea is that it creates less of the side effects, and she went to this standalone clinic in Seattle, flying there every week. It’s not a quick flight. It can take up to two hours and 45 minutes. And that just got really tiring. I mean, physically …

Rovner: And she’s got kids at home.

Zionts: Yes, physically and mentally and just taking up time. So she decided to switch to the local hospital in Juneau. So they had bills from the first clinic in Seattle, and then they got some estimates from the one in Juneau and then finally got a bill from there as well.

Rovner: Yes, as we say, “Then the bill came.” And, boy, there was a big difference between the same chemotherapy in Seattle and in Juneau, Alaska, right?

Zionts: I compared two of Emily’s treatments that used a similar mix of drugs and also had overlapping non-drug charges, such as how much it costs for the first hour of treatment, subsequent hours. And in the Seattle clinic, one round cost about $1,600. And then in Juneau it cost more than $5,000, so more than three times higher. And we were able to look at specific charges. So that first hour of chemo was $1,000 in Juneau, which is more than twice the rate in the Seattle clinic. There was a drug that cost more than three times the price at the clinic. And then even the cheaper charges were more expensive. So the hospital charged $19.15 for Benadryl, which is about 22 times the price at the clinic, which was 87 cents.

Rovner: Now to be clear, the Gebel family seems to have pretty comprehensive insurance. So this case wasn’t as much about their out-of-pocket costs as some of the other Bills of the Month that we’ve covered, but they did want to know why there was such a big difference, and what did they, and we find out?

Zionts: Yeah. So we started the story for NPR, we basically started saying, “Hey, this is a little different than the other ones because the family has met their maximum out-of-pocket.”

Rovner: For the year?

Zionts: Yes. Once you pay a certain amount of money for the year, your insurance will cover everything, and that can be a high number. But if you have cancer, cancer’s expensive, so you will probably hit it at some point. By the time she switched her treatment to Juneau, she had met that, so she wouldn’t actually owe anything.

Rovner: But what did they find out nevertheless, about why it costs that much more in Juneau than it did in Seattle?

Zionts: Yes. So Jered, her husband, he is somewhat of a self-taught medical billing expert. He gained this knowledge by listening to “Bill of the Month” and then reading some books about this. I mean, at first, he thought maybe they would owe money, but then he learned they wouldn’t. But he still didn’t think it was fair. I mean, he didn’t think it was fair for the insurance companies. And he did catch two errors. One of them, an estimate, was wrong. The hospital said, “Oh, it looks like there was a computer error,” and that was lowered. And then when it came for the actual bill, there was a coding error. It made one of the drugs not covered when it should have been. So that would’ve actually left them out-of-pocket costs. So he was able to lower an estimate, lower the bill. But again, even with those changes, it was still so much more expensive. And that’s when I called some experts and someone’s gut reaction or initial hypothesis might be, “Well, of course, it’s more expensive in Alaska. Alaska is small, it’s remote. I mean, it’s just going to cost more to ship things there. You need to pay doctors more to entice them to live there.”

Rovner: And it costs more for doctors to live there anyway, right?

Zionts: Yes.

Rovner: The cost of living is high in Alaska.

Zionts: Yes. The expert I spoke with, an economist who has studied this issue. He said, “Yes, that is part of it.” Like you said, everything is more expensive in Alaska, but even when accounting for that, the prices are even higher. So the growth of cost in the health care sector in Alaska is higher than the growth of overall cost. And he listed some policies or trends that might explain that. There’s one that really stood out, which is something called the “80th percentile rule,” but it was meant to contain cost for when you’re seen by out-of-network providers. And it seems that it may have actually backfired, and the state is considering repealing that. But as Elisabeth Rosenthal, one of our editors at KFF Health News, and she’s written an entire book about this, as she said, “This is how our health system works. There’s no law saying, this is how much you can upcharge for some intrinsic value of a medicine or of a service. So hospitals can do what they want.” So …

Rovner: And we should point out, I mean, this is not a for-profit hospital, right? It’s owned by the city.

Zionts: Yes. This is a nonprofit hospital owned by the city, and they don’t get a ton of money from the city or state, which is interesting though. So they’re really getting their funding from the services they provide. And the hospital said they try to make it fair by comparing it to wholesale costs, what other hospitals in the region are charging. But they also said, “Yes, we do need to account for the higher costs.”

Rovner: So what’s the takeaway here? I mean, basically what it costs is going to depend on where you live?

Zionts: Basically, what we’ve learned from all these Bill of the Months is that it’s going to vary depending on what facility you go to. And that could be within one city, the prices could vary. And then you might see some more variation between states and especially in states where the cost of living is higher or it’s more remote.

Rovner: Of which Alaska is both.

Zionts: Yes. And actually, something to add is that the amount of money that this hospital has to spend to fly in doctors and nurses and also just staff, even nonmedical staff, they spent nearly $11 million last year to transport them and pay them because they don’t have enough local people. And the other takeaway, though, is that yes, this can be explained, but also, it’s unexplainable in the sense that our health care system doesn’t have some magic formula or some hard rules about what is, quote, “fair.”

Rovner: Yes, at least when it comes to Medicare, Congress has been trying to do that for, oh, I don’t know, about 50 years now. Still working on it. Arielle Zionts, thank you very much for joining us.

Zionts: Thank you 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. Joanne, you’ve already done yours. Alice, why don’t you go next?

Ollstein: I did a piece by my former colleague Angela Hart for KFF Health News, and it’s about street medicine. So teams of doctors working with unhoused people, and this is profiling mainly in Northern California, but it’s sort of discussing this across the country. And in addition to the really very moving personal stories that she found in her reporting, she also talked about some of the structural stuff that is supporting the expansion of this kind of health care. And so California was already putting a lot of money into health care services for the homeless, but in hospitals and in clinics, they were finding that people just aren’t able to come in. Whether it’s because they don’t want to leave all of their earthly possessions unguarded or because they can’t get the transportation or whatever. And so that money’s now being redirected into having the doctors go to them, which seems to be successful in some ways, but the depth of health care problems is just so deep. And …

Rovner: But also, really the importance of primary care.

Ollstein: Absolutely. And so what they’re finding is just a lot of pregnancies and problems with pregnancy in the homeless population. And so they’re doing more services around that and more offering contraception and prenatal care for the people who are already pregnant. It’s very sad, but somewhat hopeful. And the other more structural thing is changing rules so that doctors can get reimbursed at a decent rate for providing street medicine as opposed to in brick-and-mortar facilities.

Rovner: Thanks. Lauren?

Weber: So I also have a KFF special from my former colleagues, Markian [Hawryluk] and Renu [Rayasam]. It’s just a great piece. It’s called “Doctors Abandon a Diagnosis Used to Justify Police Custody Deaths. It Might Live On, Anyway.” So what the piece does is it interviews the doctor who helped debunk what excited delirium is for his medical organization, but it reveals that that may not help in terms of court cases that have already been decided and in terms of science in general. And I think it’s so fascinating because what this piece does is it gets at what happens when flawed science then is used for lawsuits and consequential things for many, many years to come. I think we’ve seen a lot of stories this year about flawed science and what the actual ramifications are after, and this is clearly horrible ramifications here. And it’s just kind of a fascinating question of how does that ever get made right and how do things slowly or ever go back to what they should be after flawed science is revealed? So really, really great work from the team.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s really good piece. Well, keeping with the theme of choosing stories by our former colleagues. Mine is from a former colleague at NPR, Jeff Brady, and it’s “How Gas Utilities Used Tobacco Tactics to Avoid Gas Stove Regulations.” And if you don’t know what that refers to, I have a book or several for you about the huge sums of money that the tobacco industry paid over many decades to have captive, scientific, quote-unquote, “experts” counterclaims that smoking is bad for your health. It turns out that the gas stove industry likewise knew that gas stoves were worse for your health than electric ones, and that those vent hoods don’t really take care of all the problems of the things that gas stoves emit. And that it also paid for studies intended to muddy the waters and confuse both customers and regulators. It’s a pretty damning story, and I say that as someone who is very much attached to my gas stove but am now having second thoughts.

OK, that is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us too. Special thanks as always to our amazing and patient engineer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me holding down the fort at X, I’m @jrovner or @julierovner at Bluesky and Threads. Joanne, where are you these days?

Kenen: I’m more on Threads, @joannekenen1. I still have a Twitter account, @JoanneKenen, where I’m not very active.

Rovner: Alice?

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

Rovner: Lauren?

Weber: I’m @LaurenWeberHP on X, the HP stands for health policy, as I like to tell people.

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.

Federal officials have instructed at least 30 states to reinstate Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program coverage for half a million people, including children, after an errant computer program wrongly determined they were no longer eligible. It’s just the latest hiccup in the yearlong effort to redetermine the eligibility of beneficiaries now that the program’s pandemic-era expansion has expired.

Meanwhile, the federal government is on the verge of a shutdown, as a small band of House Republicans resists even a short-term spending measure to keep the lights on starting Oct. 1. Most of the largest federal health programs, including Medicare, have other sources of funding and would not be dramatically impacted — at least at first. But nearly half of all employees at the Department of Health and Human Services would be furloughed, compromising how just about everything runs there.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Sarah Karlin-Smith of Pink Sheet.

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories

Rachel Roubein
The Washington Post

@rachel_roubein

Read Rachel's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Officials in North Carolina announced the state will expand its Medicaid program starting on Dec. 1, granting thousands of low-income residents access to health coverage. With North Carolina’s change, just 10 states remain that have not expanded the program — yet, considering those states have resisted even as the federal government has offered pandemic-era and other incentives, it is unlikely more will follow for the foreseeable future.
• The federal government revealed that nearly half a million individuals — including children — in at least 30 states were wrongly stripped of their health coverage under the Medicaid unwinding. The announcement emphasizes the tight-lipped approach state and federal officials have taken to discussing the in-progress effort, though some Democrats in Congress have not been so hesitant to criticize.
• The White House is pointing to the possible effects of a government shutdown on health programs, including problems enrolling new patients in clinical trials at the National Institutes of Health and conducting food safety inspections at the FDA.
• Americans are grappling with an uptick in covid cases, as the Biden administration announced a new round of free test kits available by mail. But trouble accessing the updated vaccine and questions about masking are illuminating the challenges of responding in the absence of a more organized government effort.
• And the Biden administration is angling to address health costs at the executive level. The White House took its first step last week toward banning medical debt from credit scores, as the Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit to target private equity’s involvement in health care.
• Plus, the White House announced the creation of its first Office of Gun Violence Prevention, headed by Vice President Kamala Harris.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Samantha Liss, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month,” about a hospital bill that followed a deceased patient’s family for more than a year. If you have an outrageous or infuriating medical bill you’d like to send us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: JAMA Internal Medicine’s “Comparison of Hospital Online Price and Telephone Price for Shoppable Services,” by Merina Thomas, James Flaherty, Jiefei Wang, et al.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The Los Angeles Times’ “California Workers Who Cut Countertops Are Dying of an Incurable Disease,” by Emily Alpert Reyes and Cindy Carcamo.

Rachel Roubein: KFF Health News’ “A Decades-Long Drop in Teen Births Is Slowing, and Advocates Worry a Reversal Is Coming,” by Catherine Sweeney.

Sandhya Raman: NPR’s “1 in 4 Inmate Deaths Happen in the Same Federal Prison. Why?” by Meg Anderson.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• KFF Health News’ “Diagnosis: Debt,” by Noam N. Levey and KFF Health News, NPR, and CBS staff.
• The New York Times’ “In Hospitals, Viruses Are Everywhere. Masks Are Not,” by Apoorva Mandavilli.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: More Medicaid Messiness

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: More Medicaid MessinessEpisode Number: 316Published: Sept. 27, 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 early this week, on Wednesday, Sept. 27, 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 Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Rachel Roubein: Good morning. Thanks for having me.

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning.

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” interview with Samantha Liss. This month’s bill is literally one that followed a patient to his family after his death. But first, the news. I want to start with Medicaid this week. North Carolina, which approved but didn’t fund its Medicaid expansion earlier this year, approved a budget this week that will launch the expansion starting Dec. 1. That leaves just 10 states that have still not expanded the program to, mostly, low-income adults, since the Affordable Care Act made it possible in, checks notes, 2014. Any other holdout states on the horizon? Florida is a possibility, right, Rachel?

Roubein: Yes. There’s only technically three states that can do ballot measures. Now North Carolina, I believe, was the first state to actually pass through the legislature since Virginia in 2018. A lot of the most recent states, seven conservative-leaning states, instead pursued the ballot measure path. In Florida, advocates have been eyeing a 2026 ballot measure. But the one issue in Florida is that they need a 60% threshold to pass any constitutional amendment, so that is pretty, pretty high and would take a lot of voter support.

Rovner: And they would need a constitutional amendment to expand Medicaid?

Roubein: A lot of the states have been going the constitutional amendment route in terms of Medicaid in recent years. Because what they found was some legislatures would come back and try and change it, but if it’s a constitutional amendment, they weren’t able to do that. But a lot of the holdout states don’t have ballot measure processes, where they could do this — like Alabama, Georgia, etc.

Raman: Kind of just echoing Rachel that this one has been interesting just because it had come through the legislature. And even with North Carolina, it’s been something that we’ve been eyeing for a few years, and that they’d gone a little bit of the way, a little bit of the way a few times. And it was kind of the kind of gettable one within the ones that hadn’t expanded. And the ones we have left, there’s just really not been much progress at all.

Rovner: I would say North Carolina, like Virginia, had a Democratic governor that ran on this and a Republican legislature, or a largely Republican legislature, hence the continuing standoff. It took both states a long time to get to where they had been trying to go. And you’re saying the rest of the states are not split like that?

Raman: Yeah, I think it’ll be a much more difficult hill to climb, especially when, in the past, we had more incentives to expand with some of the previous covid relief laws, and they still didn’t bite. So it’s going to be more difficult to get those.

Rovner: No one’s holding their breath for Texas to expand. Anyway, while North Carolina will soon start adding people to its Medicaid rolls, the rest of the states are shedding enrollees who gained coverage during the pandemic but may no longer be eligible. And that unwinding has been bumpy to say the least. The latest bump came last week when the Department of Health and Human Services revealed that more than half a million people, mostly children, had their coverage wrongly terminated by as many as 30 states. It seems a computer program failed to note that even if a parent’s income was now too high to qualify, that same income could still leave their children eligible. Yet the entire family was being kicked off because of the way the structure of the program worked. I think the big question here is not that this happened, but that it wasn’t noticed sooner. It should have been obvious — children’s eligibility for Medicaid has been higher than adults since at least the 1980s. This unwinding has been going on since this spring. How is this only being discovered now? It’s September. It’s the end of September.

Roubein: Yeah. I mean, this was something advocates who have been closely watching this have been ringing the alarm bells for a while, and then it took time. CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] had put something out, I believe it was roughly two weeks before they actually then had the roughly half a million children regain coverage — they had put out a, “OK, well, we’re exploring which states.” And lots of reporters were like, “OK, well which state is this an issue?” So yeah, the process seemed like it took some time here.

Rovner: I know CMS has been super careful. I mean, I think they’re trying not to politicize this, because they’ve been very careful not to name states, and in many cases who they know have been wrongly dropping people. I guess they’re trying to keep it as apolitical as possible, but I think there are now some advocates who worry that maybe CMS is being a little too cautious.

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I think from the other side too, if you’ve talked to state officials, they’re also trying to be really cautious and not criticize CMS. So it seems like both sides are not wanting to go there. But I mean some Democrats in Congress have been critical of how the effort has gone.

Rovner: Yeah. And of course, if the government shuts down, as seems likely at the end of this week, that’s not going to make this whole process any easier, right? The states will still get to do what the states are doing. Their shutdown efforts, or their re-qualification efforts, are not federally funded, but the people at CMS are.

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, that’ll just throw another thorn in this as we’re getting very, very likely headed towards a shutdown at this point on the 27th. So I think that’ll be another barrier for them regardless. And I mean, most CMS money isn’t even affected by the yearly budget anyways because it’s mandatory funding, but that’ll be a barrier for sure.

Rovner: So, speaking of the government shutdown, it still seems more likely than not that Congress will fail to pass either any of the 12 regular spending bills or a temporary measure to keep the lights on when the fiscal year ends at midnight Sunday. That would lead to the biggest federal shutdown since 2013 when, fun fact, the shutdown was an attempt to delay the rollout of the Affordable Care Act. What happens to health programs if the government closes? It’s kind of a big confusing mess, isn’t it?

Roubein: Yeah, well, what we know that would definitely continue and in the short term is Medicare and Medicaid, Obamacare’s federal insurance marketplace. Medicaid has funding for at least the next three months, and there’s research developing vaccines and therapeutics that HHS, they put out their kind of contingency “What happens if there’s a shutdown?” plan. But there’s some things that the White House and others are kind of trying to point to that would be impacted, like the National Institutes of Health may not be able to enroll new patients in clinical trials, the FDA may need to delay some food safety inspections, etc.

Rovner: Sarah, I actually forgot because, also fun fact, the FDA is not funded through the rest of the spending bill that includes the Department of Health and Human Services. It’s funded through the agriculture bill. So even though HHS wasn’t part of the last shutdown in 2018 and 2019, because the HHS funding bill had already gone through, the FDA was sort of involved, right?

Karlin-Smith: Right. So FDA is lumped with the USDA, the Agriculture Department, for the purposes of congressional funding, which is always fun for a health reporter who has to follow both of those bills. But FDA is always kind of a unique one with shutdown, because so much of their funding now is user fees, particularly for specific sections. So the tobacco part of FDA is almost 100% funded by user fees, so they’re not really impacted by a shutdown. Similarly, a lot of drug, medical device applications, and so forth also are totally funded by user fees, so their reviews keep going. That said, the way user fees are, they’re really designated to specific activities.

So, where there isn’t user fees and it’s not considered a critical kind of public health threat, things do shut down, like Rachel mentioned: a lot of food work and inspections, and even on the drug and medical device side, some activities that are related that you might think would continue don’t get funded.

Rovner: Sandhya, is there any possibility that this won’t happen? And that if it does happen, that it will get resolved anytime soon?

Raman: At this point, I don’t think that we can navigate it. So last night, the Senate put out their bipartisan proposal for a continuing resolution that you would attach as an amendment to the FAA, the Federal Aviation [Administration] reauthorization. And so that would temporarily extend a lot of the health programs through Nov. 17. The issue is that it’s not something that if they are able to pass that this week, they’d still have to go to the House. And the House has been pretty adamant that they want their own plan and that the CR that they were interested in had a lot more immigration measures, and things there.

And the House right now has been busy attempting to pass this week four of the 12 appropriations bills. And even if they finished the four that they did, that they have on their plate, that would still mean going to the Senate. And Biden has said he would veto those, and it’s still not the 12. So at this point, it is almost impossible for us to not at least see something short-term. But whether or not that’s long-term is I think a question mark in all the folks that I have been talking to about this right now.

Rovner: Yeah, we will know soon enough what’s going to happen. Well, meanwhile, because there’s not enough already going on, covid is back. Well, that depends how you define back. But there’s a lot more covid going around than there was, enough so that the federal government has announced a new round of free tests by mail. And there’s an updated covid vaccine — I think we’re not supposed to call it a booster — but its rollout has been bumpy. And this time it’s not the government’s fault. That’s because this year the vaccine is being distributed and paid for by mostly private insurance. And while lots of people probably won’t bother to get vaccinated this fall, the people who do want the vaccine are having trouble getting it. What’s happening? And how were insurers and providers not ready for this? We’d been hearing the updated vaccines would be available in mid-September for months, Sarah. I mean they really literally weren’t ready.

Karlin-Smith: Yeah. I mean, it’s not really clear why they weren’t ready, other than perhaps they felt they didn’t need to be, to some degree. I mean, normally, I know I was reading actually because we’ve also recently gotten RSV [respiratory syncytial virus] vaccine approvals — normally they actually have almost like a year, I think, to kind of add vaccines to plans and schedules and so forth, and pandemic covid-related laws really shortened the time for covid. So they should have been prepared and ready. They knew this was coming. And people are going to pharmacies, or going to a doctor’s appointment, and they’re being told, “Well, we can give you the vaccine, but your insurance plan isn’t set up to cover it yet, even though technically you should be.” There seems like there’s also been lots of distribution issues where again, people are going to sites where they booked appointments, and they’re saying, “Oh, actually we ran out.” They’re trying another site. They’ve run out.

So, it’s sort of giving people a sense of the difference of what happens when sort of the government shepherds an effort and everybody — things are a bit simplified, because you don’t have to think about which site does your insurance cover. There is a program for people who don’t have insurance now who can get the vaccine for free, but again, you’re more limited in where you can go. There’s not these big free clinics; that’s really impacting childhood vaccinations, because, again, a lot of children can’t get vaccinated at the pharmacy. So I think people are being reminded of what normal looked like pre-covid, and they’re realizing maybe we didn’t like this so much after all.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s not so efficient either. All the people who said, “Oh, the private sector could do this so much more efficiently than the government.” And it’s like, we’re ending up with pretty much the same issues, which is the people who really want the vaccine are chasing around and not finding it. And I know HHS Secretary Becerra went and had this event at a D.C. pharmacy where he was going to get his vaccine. And I think the event was intended to encourage people to go get vaccinated, but it happened right at the time when the big front surge of people who wanted to get vaccinated couldn’t find the vaccine.

Karlin-Smith: I think that’s a big concern because we’ve had such low uptake of booster or additional covid shots over the past couple of years. So the people who are sort of the most go-getters, the ones who really want the shots, are having trouble and feeling a bit defeated. What does that mean for the people that are less motivated to get it, who may not make a second or third attempt if it’s not easy? We sort of know, and I think public health folks kind of beat the drum, that sort of just meeting people where they are, making it easy, easy, easy, is really how you get these things done. So it’s hard to see how we can improve uptake this year when it’s become more complicated, which I think is going to be a big problem moving forward.

Rovner: Yeah. Right. And clearly these are issues that will be ironed out probably in the next couple of weeks. But I think what people are going to remember, who are less motivated to go get their vaccines, is, “Oh my God, these people I know tried to get it and it took them weeks. And they showed up for their appointment and they couldn’t get it.” And it’s like, “It was just too much trouble and I can’t deal with it.” And there’s also, I think you mentioned that there’s an issue with kids who are too young to get the vaccine too, right?

Karlin-Smith: Right. Still, I think people forget that you have to be 6 months to get the vaccine. If you’re under 3, you basically cannot get it in a pharmacy, so you have to get it in a doctor’s office. But a lot of people are reporting online their doctor’s office sort of stopped providing covid vaccines. So they’re having trouble just finding where to go. It seems like the distribution of shots for younger children has also been a bit slower as well. And again, this is a population where just even primary series uptake has been a problem. And people are in this weird gap now where, if you can’t get access to the new covid vaccine but your kid is eligible, the old vaccine isn’t available.

So you’re sort of in this gap where your kid might not have had any opportunity yet to get a covid vaccine, and there’s nothing for them. I think we forget sometimes that there are lots of groups of people that are still very vulnerable to this virus — including newborn babies who haven’t been exposed at all, and haven’t gotten a chance to get vaccinated.

Rovner: Yeah. So this is obviously still something that we need to continue to look at. Well, meanwhile, mask mandates are making a comeback, albeit a very small one. And they are not going over well. I’ve personally been wearing a mask lately because I’m traveling later this week and next, and don’t want to get sick, at least not in advance. But masks are, if anything, even more controversial and political than they were during the height of the pandemic. Does public health have any ideas that could help reverse that trend? Or are there any other things we could do? I’ve seen some plaintiff complaints that we’ve not done enough about ventilation. That could be something where it could help, even if people won’t or don’t want to wear masks. I mean, I’m surprised that vaccination is still pretty much our only defense.

Karlin-Smith: I think with masks, one thing that’s made it hard for different parts of the health system and lower-level kind of state public health departments to deal with masks is that the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] recommendations around masking are pretty loose at this point. So The New York Times had a good article about hospitals and masking, and the kind of guidance around triggers they’ve given them are so vague. They kind of are left to make their own decisions. The CDC actually still really hasn’t emphasized the value of KN95 and N95 respirators over surgical masks. So I think it becomes really hard for those lower-level institutions to sort of push for something that is kind of controversial politically. And a lot of people are just tired of it when they don’t have the support of those bigger institutions saying it. And some of just even figuring out levels of the virus and when that should trigger masking.

It’s much harder to track nowadays because so much of our systems and data reporting is off. So, we have this sense we’re in somewhat of a surge now. Hospitalizations are up and so forth. But again, it’s a lot easier for people to make these decisions and figure out when to pull triggers when you have clear data that says, “This is what’s going on now.” And to some extent we’re … again, there’s a lot of evidence that points to a lot of covid going around now, but we don’t have that sort of hard data that makes it a lot easier for people to justify policy choices.

Raman: You just brought up ventilation and it took time, one, for some scientists to realize that covid is also spread through ultra-tiny particles. But it also took, after that, a while for the White House to pivot its strategy to stress ventilation measures in addition to masks, and face covering. So a lot of places are still kind of behind on having better ventilation in an office, or kind of wherever you’re going.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, one would think that improving ventilation in schools would improve, not only not spreading covid, but not spreading all of the respiratory viruses that keep kids out of school and that make everybody sick during the winter, during the school year.

Roubein: I was going to piggyback on something Sarah said, which was about how the CDC doesn’t have clear benchmarks on when there should be a guideline for what is high transmission in the hospital for them to reinstate a mask mandate or whatever. But there’s also nuance to consider there. Within that there’s, is there a partial masking rule? Which is like: Does the health care staff have to wear them versus the patients? And does that have enough benefit on its own if it’s only required to one versus the other? I mean, I know that a lot of folks have called for more strict rules with that, but then there’s also the folks that are worried about the backlashes. This has gotten so politicized, how many different medical providers have talked about angst at them, attacks at them, over the polarization of covid? So there’s so many things that are intertwined there that it’s tough to institute something.

Karlin-Smith: I think the other thing is we keep forgetting this is not all about covid. We’ve learned a lot of lessons about public health that could be applicable, like you mentioned in schools, beyond covid. So if you’re in the emergency room, because you have cancer and you need to see a doctor right away. And you’re sitting next to somebody with RSV or the flu, it would also be beneficial to have that patient wearing a mask because if you have cancer, you do not need to add one of these infectious diseases on top of it. So it’s just been interesting, I think, for me to watch because it seemed like at different points in this crisis, we were sort of learning things beyond covid for how it could improve our health care system and public health. But for the most part, it seems like we’ve just kind of gone back to the old ways without really thinking about what we could incorporate from this crisis that would be beneficial in the future.

Rovner: I feel like we’ve lost the “public” in public health. That everybody is sort of, it’s every individual for him or herself and the heck with everybody else. Which is exactly the opposite of how public health is supposed to work. But perhaps we will bounce back. Well, moving on. The Biden administration, via the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB, took the first steps last week to ban medical debt from credit scores, which would be a huge step for potentially tens of millions of Americans whose credit scores are currently affected by medical debt. Last year, the three major credit bureaus, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion, agreed not to include medical debt that had been paid off, or was under $500 on their credit reports. But that still leaves lots and lots of people with depressed scores that make it more expensive for them to buy houses, or rent an apartment, or even in some cases to get a job. This is a really big deal if medical debt is going to be removed from people’s credit reports, isn’t it?

Roubein: Yeah. I think that was an interesting move when they announced that this week. Because the CFPB had mentioned that in a report they did last year, 20% of Americans have said that they had medical debt. And it doesn’t necessarily appear on all credit reports, but like you said, it can. And having that financial stress while going through a health crisis, or someone in your family going through a health crisis, is layers upon layers of difficulty. And they had also said in their report that medical billing data is not an accurate indicator of whether or not you’ll repay that debt compared to other types of credit. And it also has the layers of insurance disputes, and medical billing errors, and all that sort of thing. So this proposal that they have ends up being finalized as a rule, it could be a big deal. Because some states have been trying to do this on a state-by-state level, but still in pretty early stages in terms of a lot of states being on board. So this can be a big thing for a fifth of people.

Rovner: Yeah, many people. I’m going to give a shout-out here to my KFF Health News colleague Noam Levey, who’s done an amazing project on all of this, and I think helped sort of push this along. Well, while we are on the subject of the Biden administration and money in health care, the Federal Trade Commission is suing a private equity-backed doctors group, U.S. Anesthesia Partners, charging anti-competitive behavior, that it’s driving up the price of anesthesia services by consolidating all the big anesthesiology practices in Texas, among other things. FTC Chair Lina Khan said the agency “will continue to scrutinize and challenge serial acquisitions roll-ups and other stealth consolidation schemes that unlawfully undermine fair competition and harm the American public.” This case is also significant because the FTC is suing not just the anesthesia company, but the private equity firm that backs it, Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, which is one of the big private equity firms in health care. Is this the shot across the bow for private equity and health care that a lot of people have been waiting for? I mean, we’ve been talking about private equity and health care for three or four years now.

Karlin-Smith: I think that’s what the FTC is hoping for. They’re saying not just that we’re going after anti-competitive practices in health care, that, I think, they’re making a clear statement that they’re going after this particular type of funder, which we’ve seen has proliferated around the system. And I think this week there was a report from the government showing that CMS can’t even track all of the private equity ownership of nursing homes. So we know this isn’t the only place where doctors’ practices being bought up by private equity has been seen as potentially problematic. So this has been a very sort of activist, I think, aggressive FTC in health care in general, and in a number of different sectors. So I think they’re ready to deliberate, with their actions and warnings.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s interesting. I mean, we mostly think, those of us who have followed the FTC in healthcare, which gets pretty nerdy right there, usually think of big hospital groups trying to consolidate, or insurers trying to consolidate these huge mega-mergers. But what’s been happening a lot is these private equity companies have come in and bought up physician practices. And therefore they become the only providers of anesthesia, or the only providers of emergency care, or the only providers of kidney dialysis, or the only providers of nursing homes, and therefore they can set the prices. And those are not the level of deals that tend to come before the FTC. So I feel like this is the FTC saying, “See you little people that are doing big things, we’re coming for you too.” Do we think this might dampen private equity’s enthusiasm? Or is this just going to be a long-drawn-out struggle?

Roubein: I could see it being more of a long-drawn-out struggle because even if they’re showing it as an example, there’s just so many ways that this has been done in so many kind of sectors as you’ve seen. So I think it remains to be seen further down the line as this might happen in a few different ways to a few different folks, and how that kind of plays out there. But it might take some time to get to that stage.

Karlin-Smith: I was going to say it’s always worth also thinking about just the size and budget of the FTC in comparison to the amount of private actors like this throughout the health system. So I mean, I think that’s one reason sometimes why they do try and kind of use that grandstanding symbolic messaging, because they can’t go after every bad actor through that formal process. So they have to do the signaling in different ways.

Raman: I think probably as we’ve all learned as health reporters, it takes a really long time for there to be change in the health care system.

Rovner: And I was just going to say, one thing we know about people who are in health care to make money is that they are very creative in finding ways to do it. So whatever the rules are, they’re going to find ways around them and we will just sort of keep playing this cat and mouse for a while. All right, well finally this week, a story that probably should have gotten more attention. The White House last week announced creation of the first-ever Office of Gun Violence Prevention to be headed by Vice President Kamala Harris. Its role will be to help implement the very limited gun regulation passed by Congress in 2022, and to coordinate other administration efforts to curb gun violence. I know that this is mostly for show, but sometimes don’t you really have to elevate an issue like this to get people to pay attention, to point out that maybe you’re trying to do something? Talk about things that have been hard for the government to do over the last couple of decades.

Raman: It took Congress a long time to then pass a new gun package, which the shooting in Uvalde last year ended up catalyzing. And Congress actually got something done, which was more limited than some gun safety advocates wanted. But it does take a lot to get gun safety reform across the finish line.

Rovner: I know. I mean, it’s one of those issues that the public really, really seems to care about, and that the government really, really, really has trouble doing. I’ve been covering this so long, I remember when they first banned gun violence research at HHS back in the mid-1990s. That’s how far back I go, that they were actually doing it. And the gun lobby said, “No, no, no, no, no. We don’t really want these studies that say that if you have a gun in the house, it’s more likely to injure somebody, and not necessarily the bad guy.” They were very unhappy, and it took until three or four years ago for that to be allowed to be funded. So maybe the idea that they’re elevating this somewhat, to at least wave to the public and say, “We’re trying. We’re fighting hard. We’re not getting very far, but we’re definitely trying.” So I guess we will see how that comes out.

All right, well that is this week’s news. Now, we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Sam Liss, and then we’ll come back with our extra credits. I am pleased to welcome to the podcast my KFF Health News colleague Samantha Liss, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” installment. Welcome.

Liss: Hi.

Rovner: This month’s bill involves a patient who died in the hospital, right? Tell them who he was, what he was sick with, and about his family.

Liss: Yeah. So Kent Reynolds died after a lengthy hospital stay in February of 2022. He was actually discharged after complications from colon cancer, and died in his home. And his widow, Eloise Reynolds, was left with a series of complicated hospital bills, and she reached out to us seeking help after she couldn’t figure them out. And her and Kent were married for just shy of 34 years. They lived outside of St. Louis and they have two adult kids.

Rovner: So Eloise Reynolds received what she assumed was the final hospital bill after her husband died, which she paid, right?

Liss: Yeah, she did. She paid what she thought was the final bill for $823, but a year later she received another bill for $1,100. And she was confused as to why she owed it. And no one could really give her a sufficient answer when she reached out to the hospital system, or the insurance company.

Rovner: Can a hospital even send you a bill a year after you’ve already paid them?

Liss: You know what, after looking into this, we learned that yeah, they actually can. There’s not much in the way that stops them from coming after you, demanding more money, months, or even years later.

Rovner: So this was obviously part of a dispute between the insurance company and the hospital. What became of the second bill, the year-later bill?

Liss: Yeah. After Eloise Reynolds took out a yardstick and went line by line through each charge and she couldn’t find a discrepancy or anything that had changed, she reached out to KFF Health News for help. And she was still skeptical about the bill and didn’t want to pay it. And so when we reached out to the health system, they said, “Actually, you know what? This is a clerical error. She does not owe this money.” And it sort of left her even more frustrated, because as she explained to us, she says, “I think a lot of people would’ve ended up paying this additional amount.”

Rovner: So what’s the takeaway here? What do you do if you suddenly get a bill that comes, what seems, out of nowhere?

Liss: The experts we talked to said Eloise did everything right. She was skeptical. She compared, most importantly, the bills that she was getting from the hospital system against the EOBs that she was getting from her insurance company.

Rovner: The explanation of benefits form.

Liss: That’s right. The explanation of benefits. And she was comparing those two against one another, to help guide her on what she should be doing. And because those were different between the two of them, she was left even more confused. I think folks that we spoke to said, “Yeah, she did the right thing by pushing back and demanding some explanations.”

Rovner: So I guess the ultimate lesson here is, if you can’t get satisfaction, you can always write to us.

Liss: Yeah, I hate to say that in a way, because that’s a hard solution to scale for most folks. But yeah, I mean, I think it points to just how confusing our health care system is. Eloise seemed to be a pretty savvy health care consumer, and she even couldn’t figure it out. And she was pretty tenacious in her pursuit of making phone calls to both the insurance company and the hospital system. And I think when she couldn’t figure that out, and she finally turned to us asking for help.

Rovner: So well, another lesson learned. Samantha Liss, thank you very much for joining us.

Liss: Thanks.

Rovner: Hey, “What the Health?” listeners, you already know that few things in health care are ever simple. So, if you like our show, I recommend you also listen to “Tradeoffs,” a podcast that goes even deeper into our costly, complicated, and often counterintuitive health care system. Hosted by longtime health care journalist and friend Dan Gorenstein, “Tradeoffs” digs into the evidence and research data behind health care policies and tells the stories of real people impacted by decisions made in C-suites, doctors’ offices, and even Congress. Subscribe wherever you listen to your podcasts.

OK, we’re 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. Sarah, you were the first to choose this week, so you get to go first.

Karlin-Smith: Sure. I looked at a story in the Los Angeles Times, “California Workers Who Cut Countertops Are Dying of an Incurable Disease,” by Emily Alpert Reyes and Cindy Carcamo. Hopefully I didn’t mispronounce her name. They wrote a really fascinating but sad story about people working in an industry where they’re cutting engineered stone countertops for people’s kitchens and so forth. And because of the materials in this engineered product, they’re inhaling particles that is basically giving people at a very young age incurable and deadly lung disease. And it’s an interesting public health story about sort of the lack of protection in place for some of the most vulnerable workers. It seems like this industry is often comprised of immigrant workers. Some who kind of essentially go to … outside a Home Depot, the story suggests, or something like that and kind of get hired for day labor.

So they just don’t have the kind of power to sort of advocate for protections for themselves. And it’s just also an interesting story to think about, as consumers I think people are not always aware of the costs of the products they’re choosing. And how that then translates back into labor, and the health of the people producing it. So, really fascinating, sad piece.

Rovner: Another product that you have to sort of … I remember when they first were having the stories about the dust in microwave popcorn injuring people. Sandhya, why don’t you go next?

Raman: So my extra credit this week is from NPR and it’s by Meg Anderson. And it’s called “1 in 4 Inmate Deaths Happen in the Same Federal Prison. Why?” This is really interesting. It’s an investigation that looks at the deaths of individuals who died either while serving in federal prison or right after. And they looked at some of the Bureau of Prisons data, and it showed that 4,950 people had died in custody over the past decade. But more than a quarter of them were all in one correctional facility in Butner, North Carolina. And the investigation found out that the patients here and nationwide are dying at a higher rate, and the incarcerated folks are not getting care for serious illnesses — or very delayed care, until it’s too late. And the Butner facility has a medical center, but a lot of times the inmates are being transferred there when it was already too late. And then it’s really sad the number of deaths is just increasing. And just, what can be done to alleviate them?

Rovner: It was a really interesting story. Rachel.

Roubein: My extra credit, the headline is “A Decades-Long Drop in Teen Births Is Slowing, and Advocates Worry a Reversal Is Coming,” by Catherine Sweeney from WPLN, in partnership with KFF Health News. And she writes about the national teen birth rate and how it’s declined dramatically over the past three decades. And that, essentially, it’s still dropping, but preliminary data released in June from the CDC shows that that descent may be slowing. And Catherine had talked to doctors and other service providers and advocates, who essentially expressed concern that the full CDC dataset release later this year can show a rise in teen births, particularly in Southern states. And she talked to experts who pointed to several factors here, including the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, intensifying political pushback against sex education programs, and the impact of the pandemic on youth mental health.

Rovner: Yeah. There’ve been so many stories about the decline in teen birth, which seemed mostly attributable to them being able to get contraception. To get teens not to have sex was less successful than getting teens to have safer sex. So we’ll see if that tide is turning. Well, I’m still on the subject of health costs this week. My story is a study from JAMA Internal Medicine that was conducted in part by Shark Tank panelist Mark Cuban, for whom health price transparency has become something of a crusade. This study is of a representative sample of 60 hospitals of different types conducted by researchers from the University of Texas. And it assessed whether the online prices posted for two common procedures, vaginal childbirth and a brain MRI, were the same as the prices given when a consumer called to ask what the price would be. And surprise. Mostly they were not. And often the differences were very large. In fact, to quote from the study, “For vaginal childbirth, there were five hospitals with online prices that were greater than $20,000, but telephone prices of less than $10,000. The survey was done in the summer of 2022, which was a year and a half after hospitals were required to post their prices online.” At some point, you have to wonder if anything is going to work to help patients sort out the prices that they are being charged for their health care. Really eye-opening study.

All right, that is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our amazing engineer, Francis Ying. Also, 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. Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: I’m @SarahKarlin, or @sarahkarlin-smith.

Rovner: Sandhya.

Raman: @SandhyaWrites

Rovner: Rachel.

Roubein: @rachel_roubein

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.

For the first time since 2004, it appears health insurance coverage will not be a central issue in the presidential campaign, at least judging from the first GOP candidate debate in Milwaukee Wednesday night. The eight candidates who shared the stage (not including absent front-runner Donald Trump) had major disagreements over how far to extend abortion restrictions, but there was not even a mention of the Affordable Care Act, which Republicans have tried unsuccessfully to repeal since it was passed in 2010.

Meanwhile, a new poll from KFF finds that health misinformation is not only rampant but that significant minorities of the public believe things that are false, such as that more people have died from the covid vaccine than from the covid-19 virus.

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

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories

Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times

@sangerkatz

Read Margot's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The first Republican presidential debate of the 2024 cycle included a spirited back-and-forth about abortion, but little else about health care — and that wasn’t a surprise. During the primary, Republican presidential candidates don’t really want to talk about health insurance and health care. It’s not a high priority for their base.
• The candidates were badly split on abortion between those who feel decisions should be left to the states and those who support a national ban of some sort. Former Vice President Mike Pence took a strong position favoring a national ban. The rest revealed some public disagreement over leaving the question completely to states to decide or advancing a uniform national policy.
• Earlier this summer, Stanford University’s Hoover Institute unveiled a new, conservative, free-market health care proposal. It is the latest sign that Republicans have moved past the idea of repealing and replacing Obamacare and have shifted to trying to calibrate and adjust it to make health insurance a more market-based system. The fact that such plans are more incremental makes them seem more possible. Republicans would still like to see things like association health plans and other “consumer-directed” insurance options. Focusing on health care cost transparency could also offer an opportunity for a bipartisan moment.
• In a lawsuit filed this week in U.S. District Court in Jacksonville, two Florida families allege their Medicaid coverage was terminated by the state without proper notice or opportunity to appeal. It seems to be the first such legal case to emerge since the Medicaid “unwinding” began in April. During covid, Medicaid beneficiaries did not have to go through any kind of renewal process. That protection has now ended. So far, the result is that an estimated 5 million people have lost their coverage, many because of paperwork issues, as states reassess the eligibility of everyone on their rolls. It seems likely that more pushback like this is to come.
• A new survey released by KFF this week on medical misinformation found that the pandemic seems to have accelerated the trend of people not trusting public health and other institutions. It’s not just health care. It’s a distrust of expertise. In addition, it showed that though there are people on both ends — the extremes — there is also a muddled middle.
• Legislation in Texas that was recently signed into law by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott hasn’t gotten a lot of notice. But maybe it should, because it softens some of the state’s anti-abortion restrictions. Its focus is on care for pregnant patients; it gives doctors some leeway to provide abortion when a patient’s water breaks too early and for ectopic pregnancies; and it was drafted without including the word “abortion.” It bears notice because it may offer a path for other states that have adopted strict bans and abortion limits to follow.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Doctors and Patients Try to Shame Insurers Online to Reverse Prior Authorization Denials,” by Lauren Sausser.

Margot Sanger-Katz: KFF Health News’ “Life in a Rural ‘Ambulance Desert’ Means Sometimes Help Isn’t on the Way,” by Taylor Sisk.

Joanne Kenen: The Atlantic’s “A Simple Marketing Technique Could Make America Healthier,” by Lola Butcher.

Victoria Knight: The New York Times’ “The Next Frontier for Corporate Benefits: Menopause,” by Alisha Haridasani Gupta.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• NPR’s “Two Families Sue Florida for Being Kicked off Medicaid in ‘Unwinding’ Process,” by Selena Simmons-Duffin
• NPR’s “Texas Has Quietly Changed Its Abortion Law,” by Selena Simmons-Duffin.
• KFF’s “Poll: Most Americans Encounter Health Misinformation, and Most Aren’t Sure Whether It’s True or False.”

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: A Not-So-Health-y GOP Debate

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Aug. 24, 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 Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Margot Sanger-Katz: Good morning.

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Victoria Knight of Axios News.

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone.

Rovner: No interview this week, but we’ll have an entire interview episode next week. More on that later. First, we will get to this week’s news. Well, Wednesday night saw the first Republican presidential debate of the 2024 cycle, minus front-runner Donald Trump, in what could only be called a melee, on Fox News Channel. And while there was a spirited debate about abortion, which we’ll get to in a minute, I didn’t hear a single word about anything else health-related — not Medicare or Medicaid, nor any mention of the Affordable Care Act. Was anybody surprised by that? For the record, I wasn’t. I wasn’t really expecting anything except abortion.

Kenen: Well, somebody, I think it was [former New Jersey Gov. Chris] Christie actually pointed out that nobody was talking about it.

Knight: Mike Pence. It was [former Vice President] Mike Pence, actually.

Kenen: Oh, Pence. OK. “Nobody’s talking about Medicare and Social Security.” And then he didn’t talk about it, and nobody mentioned the ACA.

Rovner: Is the ACA really gone as a Republican issue, for this cycle, do we think?

Kenen: Well, I think it’s become, like, a guerrilla warfare. Like, they’re still trying to undermine it. They’re not trying to repeal it, but they’re looking at its sort of soft underbelly, so to speak, and trying to figure out where they can put more market forces on, which we can sort of come back to later. But they spent 10 years trying to repeal it, and they just figured out what they’ve got to do now is pretend it’s not there. Right now, abortion is their topic.

Rovner: Well, let us turn to that.

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, I was just going to say that we’ve been seeing this happen a little bit over the last couple of cycles. In the 2020 race — I went through the transcripts of all of the speakers during the Republican National Convention and was really staggered by how few mentions of Obamacare there were relative to the way that the issue had been discussed in the past. But I think — just a note, that this is the Republican debate. Republicans don’t really want to be talking about health insurance and health care, because they don’t really have affirmative plans to put forward and because I think that they see that there are some real political liabilities in staking out a strong position on these issues. But in a general election, I think it will be impossible for them to avoid it, because, I think, Joe Biden has a lot of things that he wants to say. I think he is very committed to, in particular, broadcasting that he wants to protect Medicare. I think he’s quite proud of the expansions that he’s made of the Affordable Care Act. And so, this is a little bit of a weird moment in the race because, you know, we really only have one party that’s having a primary, and its leading candidate is not participating in the debates. And so, I think these candidates are trying to focus elsewhere. But it is — I will say, as someone who’s covered a couple of these now — it is a weird experience to have health care and health policy feel like a second-tier issue, because it was so central — Obamacare, in particular — was just so central to so many of these election cycles and such an animating and unifying issue among Republican voters, that this kind of post-failure-of “repeal and replace” era feels very different.

Kenen: One really quick thing is, they’re going to hit Biden on inflation. Economically, it’s his most vulnerable point, and health care costs are a burden. And I was a little surprised, without going into Obamacare and repeal and all that stuff, they mentioned the price of food, the price of gas, they mentioned interest rates and housing. It would have been really easy, and I expect that at some point they will start doing it, to talk about the cost of health care, because Biden’s done a huge amount on coverage and making insurance more affordable and accessible. But the cost of health care, as we all know, is still high in America.

Rovner: And at very least, the cost of prescription drugs, which has been a bipartisan issue going back many, many years. All right. Well, the one health issue that, not surprisingly, did get a lot of attention last night was abortion. With the exception of Mike Pence, who has been an anti-abortion absolutist for his entire tenure in Congress, as governor of Indiana, and as vice president, everyone else looked pretty uncomfortable trying to walk the line between the very anti-abortion base of the party and the recognition that anti-abortion absolutism has been a losing electoral strategy since the Supreme Court overturned Roe last year. What does this portend for the rest of the presidential race and for the rest of the down-ballot next year? Rather than trying to bury the fact that they all disagree, they all just publicly disagreed?

Knight: And I think they also, like, if you listened, [former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations] Nikki Haley kind of skirted around how she would address it. She talked about some other things, like contraception and saying that there just weren’t enough votes in the Senate to pass any kind of national abortion ban. [Florida Gov.] Ron DeSantis also, similarly, said he was proud of his six-week bill but didn’t quite want to answer about a national abortion ban. There were the few that did say, like, Hey, we’re into that. And some said, You know, it needs to go back to the states. So there definitely was kind of this slew of reactions on the stage, which I think just shows that the Republican Party is figuring out what message, and they don’t have a unified one on abortion, for sure.

Rovner: I do want to talk about Nikki Haley for a second, because this is what she’s been saying for a long time that she thinks that there’s a middle ground on abortion. And, you know, bless her heart. I’ve been covering this for almost 40 years and there has never been a middle ground. And she says, well, everybody should be for contraception. Well, guess what? There’s a lot of anti-abortion stalwarts who think that many forms of contraception are abortion. So there isn’t even a consensus on contraception. Might she be able to convince people that there could be a middle ground here?

Sanger-Katz: Oh, what I found sort of interesting about her answers: I think on their face they were kind of evasive. They were like, I don’t need to answer this question because there’s not a political consensus to do these things. But I do think it was sort of revealing of where the political consensus is and isn’t that I think she’s right. Like, realistically, there aren’t the votes to totally ban abortion; there aren’t the votes to renew the Roe standard. And I think she was in some ways very honestly articulating the bind that Republicans find themselves in, where they, and I think a lot of their voters, have these very strong pro-life values. At the same time, they recognize that getting into discussions about total abortion bans gives no favors politically and also isn’t going to happen in the near future. So, I felt like, as a journalist, you know, thinking about how I would feel having asked her that question, I felt very dissatisfied by her answer, because she really didn’t answer what she would like to do. But I do think she channeled the internal debate that all these candidates are facing, which is, like, is it worth it to go all the way out there with a policy that I know will alienate a lot of American voters when I know that it cannot be achieved?

Rovner: I was actually glad that she said that because I’ve been saying the opposite is true also — everybody says, well, why didn’t, you know, Congress enshrine abortion rights when they could have? The fact is, they never could have. There have never been 60 votes in the Senate for either side of this debate. That’s why they tried early after Roe to do national bans and then a constitutional amendment. They could never get enough votes. And they tried to do the Freedom of Choice Act and other abortion rights bills, and they couldn’t get those through either. And this is where I get to remind everybody, for the 11,000th time, the family planning law, the Title X, the federal Family Planning [Services and Public Research] Act, hasn’t been reauthorized since 1984 because neither side has been able to muster the votes even to do that. Sorry, Joanne, you wanted to say something.

Kenen: No, I thought Haley’s response on abortion was actually really pretty interesting on two points, right? She didn’t technically answer the question, but she also said this question is a fantasy — you know, face it. And, you know, she said that, and then she mentioned the word contraception. She did not dwell on it. She sort of said it sort of quickly. She missed an opportunity, maybe, just for one or two more sentences. You know, she said we need to make sure that contraception … she’s the only woman on that stage. She’s a mother; she’s got two kids. And, you know, there is uncertainty. After Dobbs there were advocacy groups saying, you know, they’re going to ban contraception tomorrow, and that didn’t happen. And we still don’t know how that fight will play out and what types of contraception will be debated. But I noticed that she said that on a stage full of Republicans, and I noticed that nobody else — all men — didn’t pick up on it.

Rovner: The big divide seemed to be, do you want to leave it completely to the states or do you want to have some kind of national floor of a ban? And they seemed, yeah —

Kenen: Yeah, and the moderators didn’t pick up on that. I mean, there was such a huge brouhaha on the stage. You know, the moderators had a lot of trouble moderating last night. It wouldn’t have been easy for them to get off of abortion and follow up on contraception. But I thought it was just sort of an interesting thing that she noted it.

Sanger-Katz: I will say also, and I agree with Julie: With the possible exception of Mike Pence, even the candidates that were endorsing some kind of national abortion policy, we’re talking about a 15-week gestational limit. There really wasn’t anyone who was coming out and saying, “Let’s ban all abortions. Let’s even go to six weeks,” which many of the states, including Florida, have done. So I do think, again, like, even the candidates that were more willing to take an aggressive stand on whether the federal government should get involved in this issue were moderating the position that you might have expected for them before Dobbs.

Kenen: But even 15 weeks shows how the parameters of this conversation have changed, because what the Republicans had been doing pre-Dobbs was 20 weeks, with their so-called fetal-pain bills. So 15 weeks, which would have sounded extremely radical two years ago — compared to six weeks, 15 sounds like, oh, you know, this huge opportunity for the pro-choice people. And it is another sign of how this space has shrunk.

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, no, I don’t mean that it’s a huge opportunity for the pro-choice people, but I think it reflects that even the candidates who were willing to go the most out on the limb in wanting to enforce a national abortion restriction understand the politics do not permit them to openly advocate going all the way towards a full ban.

Rovner: While we are on the subject of Republicans and health, there actually is a new Republican plan to overhaul the health system. Sort of. It’s from the Hoover Institution at Stanford, from which a lot of conservative policy proposals emanate. And it’s premised on the concept that consumers should have better control of the money spent on their health care and a better idea of what things cost. Now, this has basically been the theme of Republican health plans for as long as I can remember. And the lead author of this plan is Lanhee Chen, who worked for Republicans in the Senate and then led presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s policy shop, and whose name has been on a lot of conservative proposals. But I find this one notable more for its timing. Republicans, as we mentioned, appear to have internalized the idea that the only thing they can agree on when it comes to health care is that they don’t like the Affordable Care Act. Is that changing or is this just sort of hope from the Republican side of the policy wonk shop?

Sanger-Katz: I think this is connected to the discussion that we had about the debate, but it feels to me like we are in a bit of a post Obamacare era where the fights about “Are we going to continue to have Obamacare or not?” have sort of faded from the mainstream of the discussion. But there’s still plenty of discussion to be had about the details. The Democrats clearly want to expand Obamacare in various ways. Some of those they have done in a temporary fashion. Others are still on the wish list. And I think this feels very much like the kind of calibration adjustment, you know, small changes, tinkers on the Republican side to try to make the health insurance market a little bit more market-based. But this is not a big overhaul kind of plan. This is not a repeal-and-replace plan. This is not a plan that is changing the basic architecture of how most Americans get their insurance and how it is paid for. This is a plan that is making small changes to the regulation of insurance and to the way that the federal government finances certain types of insurance. That said, I think the fact that it’s more incremental makes it feel like these are things that are more likely to potentially happen because they feel like there are things that you could do without having a huge disruptive effect and a big political backlash and that you could maybe develop some political consensus around.

Rovner: It does, although I do feel like, you know, this is a very 2005 plan. This is the kind of thing that we would have seen 15 years ago. But as Democrats have gotten the Affordable Care Act and discovered that the details make it difficult, Republicans have actually gotten a lot on the transparency side and, you know, helping people understand what things cost. And that hasn’t worked very well either. So there’s a long way to go, I think, on both sides to actually make some of these things work. Victoria, did you want to add something?

Knight: Yeah, I’ve been talking to Republicans a lot, trying to figure out like what is their next go-to going to be. And I think they’re pretty understanding that ACA is set in place, but they still don’t want to give up that there are alternative types of health insurance that they want to put out there. And I think that seems that’s kind of what they realize they can accomplish if they get another Republican president and they’re going to try to do association health plans again. They’re going to try to expand some of these what they call health reimbursement arrangements, things like that, to just like kind of try to add some other types of health insurance options, because I think they know that ACA is just too entrenched and that there’s not much else they can do outside of that. And then, yeah, I think focus a little more on the transparency and cost because they know that’s a winning message and that is the one thing in Congress right now on the health care end that seems to have bipartisan momentum for the most part.

Rovner: Yeah, I think you’re absolutely right. Well, another issue that could have come up in last night’s debate but didn’t was the unwinding of Medicaid coverage from the pandemic. The news this week is that the first lawsuit has been filed accusing a state of mistreating Medicaid beneficiaries. The suit filed against Florida by the National Health Law Program and other groups is on behalf of two kids, one with a disability, and a mom who recently gave birth. All would seem to still be eligible, and the mom says she was never told how to contest the eligibility determination that she was no longer eligible, and that she was cut off when she tried to call and complain. State officials say their materials have been approved by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which they have, and that Florida, in fact, has a lower procedural disenrollment rate than the average state, which is also true. But with 5 million people already having been dropped from Medicaid, I imagine we’re going to start to see a little more pushback from advocacy groups about people who are, in all likelihood, still eligible and have been wrongly dropped. I’m actually a little surprised that it took this long.

Kenen: Many of the people who have been dropped, if they’re still eligible, they can get recertified. I mean, there’s no open enrollment season for Medicaid. If you’re Medicaid-eligible, you’re Medicaid-eligible. The issue is, obviously, she didn’t understand this. It’s not being communicated well. If you show up at the hospital, they can enroll you. But people who are afraid that they aren’t covered anymore may be afraid of going to the hospital even if they need to. So there’s all sorts of bad things that happen. In some of these cases, there are simple solutions if the person walks in the door and asks for help. But there are barriers to walking in the door and asking for help.

Rovner: I was going to say one of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit is a child with a disease …

Kenen: Cystic fibrosis.

Rovner: Right. That needs expensive drugs and had not been able to get her drugs because she had been cut off of Medicaid. So there’s clearly stuff going on here. It’s probably true that Florida is better than the average state, which means that the average state is probably not doing that well at a lot of these things. And I think we’re just starting to see, you know, it’s sort of mind-numbing to say, oh, 5 million people have been separated from their health insurance. And again, we have no idea how many of those have gotten other health insurance, how many of those don’t even know and won’t know until they show up to get health care and find out they’re no longer covered. And how many people have been told they’re no longer covered but can’t figure out how to complain and get back on?

Sanger-Katz: And it’s this very extreme thing that’s happening right now. But it is, in many ways, the normal system on steroids. You know, if you’ve been covering Medicaid for any period of time, as all of us have, like, people get disenrolled all of the time from Medicaid for these administrative reasons, because of some weird hiccup in the system, they move, their income didn’t match in some database. This is a problem that a lot of states face because they have financial incentives often to drop people off of Medicaid because they have to pay a portion of the cost of providing health care. And a lot of them have rickety systems, and they’re dealing with a population that often has unstable housing or complicated lives that make it hard for them to do a lot of paperwork and respond to letters in a timely way. And so part of the way that I’ve been thinking about this unwinding is that there’s a particular thing that’s happening now, and I think there’s a lot of scrutiny on it, appropriately. And I think that there should be to make sure that the states are not cutting any corners. But I also think in some ways it’s sort of like a way of pressure-testing the normal system and reminding us of all of the people who slip through the cracks in normal times and will continue to do so after this unwinding is over. And these stories in Florida, to me, do not feel that dissimilar from the kinds of stories that I have heard from patients and advocates in states long before this happened.

Rovner: Yeah, I think you’re right. It’s just shining a light on what happens. I mean, it was the oddity that they were … states were not allowed to redetermine eligibility during the pandemic because normally states are required to redetermine eligibility at least once a year. And I think some do it twice a year. So it’s, you know, these redeterminations happen. They just don’t happen all in a huge pile the way they’re happening now. And I think that’s the concern.

Sanger-Katz: And it also, I think, really shines a light on the way that Medicaid is structured, where the Affordable Care Act simplified it quite a lot because, [for example], you’re in an expansion state and you earn less than a certain amount of money, then you can get Medicaid. But there are all of these categories of eligibility where, you know, you have to be pregnant, you have to be the parent of a child of a certain age. You have to demonstrate that you have a certain disability. And I think [it] is a reminder that this is a pretty complicated safety net, Medicaid. You know, there’s lots of things that beneficiaries have to prove to states in order to stay eligible. And there’s lots of things, honestly, you know, if states really want to make sure that they are reserving resources for the people who need them, that they do need to be checking on. And so I think we’re all just sort of seeing that this is a messy, complicated process. And I think we’re also seeing that there are these gaps and holes in who Medicaid covers. And it’s not the case that we have a perfect and seamless system of universal coverage in this country. We have this patchwork and people do fall between the cracks.

Kenen: And this is one of the most vulnerable populations, obviously. Some of the elderly are also very vulnerable, but these are people who may not speak either English or Spanish. They don’t have access to computers necessarily. I mean, we’re giving the least assistance to the population that needs the most assistance. And, you know, I mean, I think if Biden wanted to be really savvy about fixing it, he’d come out with some slogan about “Instead of Medicare unwinding, it’s time to have Medicare rewinding,” or something like that, because they’re going to have to figure … I mean, they have taken some steps, but it’s a huge mess, and the uninsurance rate is going to go up, and hospitals are going to have patients that are no longer covered, and it’s not going to be good for either the health care system or certainly the people who rely on Medicaid.

Rovner: I think it’s noteworthy how much the administration has been trying not to politicize this, that apparently, you know, we keep hearing that they won’t even tell us which states, although you can … people can sort of start to figure it out. But, you know, states that are having a more difficult time keeping eligible people on the rolls, shall we say, when the administration could have … I mean, they could be trumpeting, you know, which states are doing badly and trying to shame them. And they are rather very purposely not doing that. So I do think that there’s at least an attempt to keep this as collegial, if you will, as possible in a presidential election year. So my colleagues here at KFF have a depressing, but I guess not all that surprising, poll out this week about medical misinformation and how much of the public believes things that simply aren’t true — like that more people died from the covid vaccine than covid itself, or that ivermectin is a useful treatment for the virus. It’s not. It’s for parasites. And the survey didn’t just ask about covid. People have been exposed to, and a significant percentage believe, things like that it’s harder to get pregnant if you’ve been on birth control and stop. It isn’t. Or that people who keep guns in their house are less likely to be killed by a gun than those who don’t. They’re not. But what’s really depressing is the fact that the pandemic seems to have accelerated an already spiraling trend in distrust of public institutions in general: government, local and national media, and social media. Are we ever going to be able to start to get that back? I mean, you know, we talk about the woes with public health, but this goes a lot deeper than that, doesn’t it?

Kenen: And it’s not just health care. When you look at historical metrics about trust — which I’ve had to for a course I teach — we were never a very trusting society, it turns out. We’ve had large sectors of the population haven’t been trusting of many institutions and sectors of society for decades. We’re just not too huggy in this country. It’s gotten way worse. And what you said is right, but it’s broad. It’s not just doctors. It’s not just vaccines, it’s expertise. This distrust is really corrosive. But of all the things in that survey, one that really blew me away was we’re like, what, 13 years since Obamacare was passed? Only 7% or 8% — “only,” I should say only in quotes, you know — only 7% or 8% still thought there were death panels, but something like 70% wasn’t sure if there were death panels. Like, has anyone known anyone who went before a death panel? Since 2010? And yet 70% — I mean, I may be a little off, I didn’t write it down — but it’s something like 70% weren’t sure. And that is a mind-blowing number. It just says, you know, they weren’t ready to come out and say, yes, there are death panels. But that meant that a lot of Democrats also weren’t sure if there were death panels There are no death panels.

Knight: I was just gonna say, I also thought it was interesting that it showed people do use social media to get a lot of their information, but then they also don’t trust the information that they get on there. So it’s kind of like, yeah …

Rovner: And they’re right not to!

Knight: Yeah, they’re absolutely right not to. But then it’s also like, well, they’re then just not getting health information at all, or if they’re getting it, they just don’t trust it. So just showcasing how difficult it is to fill that void of health information, like, people just aren’t getting it or don’t trust it.

Rovner: I feel like some of this is social literacy. I mean, you know, we talk about health literacy and things that people can understand, but, you know, people don’t understand the way journalism works, the difference between the national news and what you see on Facebook. And I think that’s, Joanne, going back to your point about people not trusting expertise, it’s also not being able to figure out what expertise is and who has expertise. I mean, that’s really sort of the bottom line of all this, isn’t it?

Kenen: Well, I mean, I was doing some research — I can’t remember the exact details, this was something I read several months ago — but there was one survey maybe a couple of years ago where the majority of people said they don’t trust the news they read, but they’re still getting their news from something that they don’t trust. So it sounds sort of funny, but it’s actually not. I mean, it’s really a crisis of people don’t know what to believe. The uncertainty is corrosive, and it’s health care and politics, this widening chasm of people with alternative sets of facts — or alternative worldviews, anyway. So it’s not good. I mean, it was a really good survey, it was a really interesting survey, but some of it wasn’t so surprising. I mean, that there’s still people who, like, the fertility issues and the vaccines. You can sort of understand why those have lingered in the environment we’re in. I had actually had a conversation the other day with a political scientist who had studied the death panel rumors 10 years ago. And I said, what about now? And, you know, he was sort of … he hadn’t looked at it and he was sort of saying, well, you know, there aren’t any. And people have probably figured that out by now. Well, no. I have to email him the study, right?

Sanger-Katz: Anytime that I read a study like this, I am also reminded — and I think it is useful for all of us to be reminded of this and probably most people who are listening to the podcast — that the average American is just not as tuned in on the news and on the Washington debate and on the minutia of public policy, as all of us are. So, you know, and I think that that is part of the reason why you see so many people not sure about these things. It’s clearly the case that they are being exposed to bad information and that is contributing to their uncertainty. And I think the rise of misinformation about both health policy and about actual, you know, health care, in the case of covid, is a bad and relatively newer phenomenon. But I also think a lot of people just aren’t paying that close attention, you know, and it’s good to be reminded of that.

Kenen: The book I just read that I referred to — it’s by an MIT political scientist named Adam Berinsky, and it’s called “Political Rumors.” And it just came out, and he was talking about exactly that, that we’re all exposed to misinformation. We can’t avoid it. It’s everywhere. And that for people who aren’t as engaged with day-to-day politics, they end up uncertain. That’s this messy middle, which they also use in the KFF survey. They came up with a very similar conclusion about the “muddled middle,” I think was the phrase they used. And what this political scientist said to me the other day was that, you know, pollsters tend to not look at the “I don’t know, I’m uncertain, no opinion.” They sort of shunt them aside and they look at the “yes” or “no” people. And he was saying, no, no, no, you know, this is the population we really need to pay attention to, the “Uncertains” because they’re probably the ones you can reach more. And in the real world, we saw that with vaccination, right? I mean, in the primary series — I mean, booster takeup was low — but in the primary when there was a lot of uncertainty about the vaccines, the people who said “no way I am ever going to get the vaccine” — I mean, KFF was surveying this every month — most of them didn’t. You know, a few on the margins did, but most of them who were really militantly against the vaccine didn’t take it. The ones who were “I don’t know” and “I’m a little scared” and “I’m waiting and seeing” … a lot of them did take it. They were reached. And that’s sort of an important lesson to shift the focus as we deal with distrust, as we deal with disinformation and we deal with messaging, which is good, and truth-building and confidence-building, it is that muddled middle that’s going to have to be more of a target than we have traditionally thought.

Rovner: Well, in the interest of actually giving good information, we have a couple of updates on the reproductive health front. For those of you keeping score, abortion bans took effect this week in South Carolina and Indiana after long drawn-out court battles. Meanwhile, in Texas, an update to our continuing discussion of women with pregnancy complications who’ve been unable to get care because doctors fear running afoul of that state’s ban, a couple of weeks ago, reports Selena Simmons-Duffin at NPR, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott very quietly signed a law that created a couple of exceptions to the ban for ectopic pregnancies and premature rupture of membranes, both of which are life-threatening to the pregnant woman, but just not necessarily immediately life-threatening. I had not heard a word about this change in the law until I saw Selena’s story. Had any of you?

Kenen: In fact, it should have come up because of this court case in Texas about, you know, a broader health exception — it’s not even “health,” it’s life-threatening. It’s like, at what point do you get sick enough that your life is in danger as opposed to, you know, should you be treating that woman before … you see what direction it’s going, and you don’t let them go to the brink of death? I mean, that was the court case and Abbott fought that. But yeah, it was interesting.

Rovner: It was a really interesting story that was also, you know, pushed by a state legislator who was trying very hard not to … never to say the word abortion and to just make sure that, you know, this was about health care and not abortion. It’s an interesting story, we will link to it.

Sanger-Katz: I wonder if other states will do this as well. It seems like, as we’ve discussed, you know, abortion bans are not as popular as I think many Republican politicians thought they would [be]. And I do think that these cases of women who face really terrible health crises and are unable to get treated are contributing to the public’s dislike of these policies. And on the one hand, I think that there is a strong dislike of exceptions among people who support abortion bans because they don’t want the loopholes to get so big that the actual policy becomes meaningless. On the other hand, it seems like there is a real incentive for them in trying to fix these obvious problems, because I think it contributes to bad outcomes for women and children. And I think it also contributes to political distaste for the abortion ban itself.

Kenen: But it’s very hard to legislate every possible medical problem …  I mean, what Texas did in this case was they legislated two particular medical problems. And some states … they have the ectopic — I mean, ectopic is not … there’s no stretch of the imagination that that’s viable. Right? The only thing that happens with an ectopic pregnancy is it either disintegrates or it hemorrhages. I mean, the woman is going to have a problem, but making a list of “you get this condition, you can have a medical emergency abortion, but if you have that condition and your state legislator didn’t happen to think about it, then you can’t.” I mean, the larger issue is: How do you balance the legal restrictions and medical judgments? And that’s … I don’t think any state that has a ban has completely figured that out.

Rovner: Right. And we’re back to legislators practicing medicine, which is something that I think the public does seem to find distasteful.

Sanger-Katz: I mean, I don’t think that this solves the problem at all, but I think it does show a surprising responsiveness to the particular bad outcomes that are getting the most publicity and a sort of new flexibility among the legislators who support these abortion bans. So it’s interesting.

Rovner: All right. Meanwhile, another shocking story about pregnant women being treated badly. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported this week that a survey conducted this April found that 1 in 5 women reported being mistreated by medical professionals during pregnancy or delivery. For women of color, the rate was even higher: more than 1 in 4. Mistreatment included things like getting no response to calls for help, being yelled at or scolded, and feeling coerced into accepting or rejecting certain types of treatment. We know a lot of cases where women in labor or after birth reported problems that went ignored. Among the most notable, of course, was tennis legend Serena Williams, who gave birth to her second child this week after almost not surviving the birth of her first. We’re hearing so much about the high maternal mortality rate in the U.S. What is it going to take to change this? This isn’t something that can be solved by throwing more money at it. This has got to be sort of a change in culture, doesn’t it?

Kenen: No. I mean, it’s … if someone who’s just given birth, particularly if it’s the first time and you don’t know what’s normal and what’s not and what’s dangerous and what’s not dangerous, and, you know, it’s a trauma to your body. I mean, you know, I had a very much-wanted child, but labor is tough, right? I always say that evolution should have given us a zipper. But the philosophy should be, if someone who’s just been through this physical and emotional ordeal, has discomfort or a question or a fear, that you respect it and that you calm it down, you don’t dismiss it or yell at somebody. When you’re pregnant, you read all these books and you go to Lamaze workshops and you learn all this stuff about labor and delivery. You learn nothing about what happens right after. And it’s actually quite uncomfortable. And no one had ever told me what to expect. And I didn’t know. And I always, like, when younger women are having babies, I let them know that, you know, talk to your doctor or learn about this or be prepared for this, because that is a really vulnerable point. And that this survey — and it’s more Black and poor women, and Latina women in this survey, it’s not that … it’s disproportionate like everything else in health care — they’re being disrespected and not listened to. And some of them are going to have bad medical outcomes because of that.

Rovner: As we are seeing. All right. Well, that is this week’s news now. We will take a quick break. Then we will come back and do our extra credit.

Hey, “What the Health?” listeners: You already know that few things in health care are ever simple. So if you like our show, I recommend you also listen to “Tradeoffs,” a podcast that goes even deeper into our costly, complicated, and often counterintuitive health care system. Hosted by longtime health journalist and my friend Dan Gorenstein, “Tradeoffs” digs into the evidence and research data behind health care policies and tells the stories of real people impacted by decisions made in C-suites, doctors’ offices, and even Congress. Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

OK, we’re 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 missed it; we will post the links on the podcast page at KFFHealthNews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Victoria, why don’t you go first this week?

Knight: So my extra credit is from The New York Times, and the story is called “The Next Frontier for Corporate Benefits: Menopause.” It basically details how a lot of companies are realizing that, you know, as more women get into leadership positions, high-level leadership, executive positions, they’re in their 40s, late 40s, early 50s, that’s when menopause or perimenopause starts happening. And that’s something that can last for a while. I didn’t realize the stories, that it can last almost 10 years sometimes. And so it was talking about how, you know, it affects women for a long period of time. It can also affect their productivity in the workplace and their comfort and being able to accomplish things. And so they were realizing, you know, we kind of need to do something to help these women stay in these positions. And there was actually an interesting tidbit at the very end where it was talking about some companies may even be, like, legally compelled to make accommodations. And that’s due to the new Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which says that employers have to provide accommodations for people experiencing pregnancy but also related medical conditions. They’re saying menopause could be included in that. And just some of the benefits some of these companies were offering were access to virtual specialists, but they were talking about, like, if they need to do other things like cooling rooms and stuff like that. So I thought it was kind of interesting. And another employer benefit that maybe some employers are thinking about adding.

Kenen: I think all offices should have, like, little nap cubicles and man-woman, pregnant-not pregnant. And, you know, just like “life is rough.” [laughter]

Knight: I agree.

Kenen: Just a little corner!

Rovner: Joanne, why don’t you go next?

Kenen: Mine is from The Atlantic. It’s by Lola Butcher. And it is “A Simple Marketing Technique Could Make America Healthier.” And it’s basically talking about how some medical practices are doing what we in the news business and the tech industry knows of as “A-B testing.” You know, a tech company may try a big button or a little button and see which one consumers like. Newsrooms change headlines— headline A, headline B and see which one draws more readers — and that hospitals and medical practices have been trying to do. In some cases, it’s text messaging two different kinds of reminders to figure out, you know … one example was the message with something like 78 characters got women to book a mammogram, but a message with 155 characters did not. Two text messages were better than one for booking children’s vaccines. So some people are very excited about this. It’s getting people to do preventive care and routine care. And some people think this is just not the problem with health care, that it’s way deeper and more systemic and that this isn’t really going to move the needle. But it was an interesting piece.

Rovner: Any little thing helps.

Kenen: Right. This was an interesting piece.

Rovner: Margot.

Sanger-Katz: I wanted to talk about an article in KFF Health News from Taylor Sisk. The headline is “Life in a Rural ‘Ambulance Desert’ Means Sometimes Help Isn’t on the Way,” and it’s a really interesting exploration of some of the challenges of ambulance care in rural areas, which is a topic that is near and dear to my heart. Because when I was a reporter in New Hampshire covering rural health care delivery, I spent the better part of a year writing about ambulance services and the challenges there. And I think this story is highlighting a real challenge for people in these communities. And I think it’s also really a reminder that the ambulance system is this weird, off-to-the-side part of our health care system that I think is often not well integrated and not well thought of. It tends to be regulated as transportation, not as health care. It tends to be provided by local governments or by contractors hired by local governments as opposed to health care institutions. It tends to have a lot of difficulty with billing a very high degree of surprise billing for its patients, and also just a real lack of health services research about best practices for how fast ambulances should arrive, what level of care they should provide to people, and on and on. And I just think that it’s good that she’s highlighted this issue. And also, I think it is a reminder to me that ambulances are probably worth a little bit more attention from reporters overall.

Rovner: Well, my story is also something that’s near and dear to my heart because I’ve been covering it for a long time. It’s from my KFF Health News colleague Lauren Sausser. It’s called “Doctors and Patients Try to Shame Insurers Online to Reverse Prior Authorization Denials.” And it is a wonderful 2023 update to a fight that Joanne and I have been covering since, what, the late 1990s. It even includes comments from Dr. Linda Peeno, who testified about inappropriate insurance company care denials to Congress in 1996. I was actually at that hearing. The twist, of course, now is that while people who were wrongly denied care at the turn of the century needed to catch the attention of a journalist or picket in front of the insurance company’s headquarters. Today, an outrage post on Instagram or TikTok or X can often get things turned around much faster. On the other hand, it’s depressing that after more than a quarter of a century, patients are still being caught in the middle of appropriateness fights between doctors and insurance companies. Maybe prior authorization will be the next surprise medical bill fight in Congress. We shall see. All right. That is our show for the week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our amazing engineer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me or X me or whatever. I’m @jrovner, also on Bluesky and Threads. Joanne?

Kenen: I am also on Twitter, @JoanneKenen; and I’m on Threads, @joannekenen1; and Bluesky, JoanneKenen.

Rovner: Margot.

Sanger-Katz: I’m @sangerkatz.

Rovner: Victoria.

Knight: I’m @victoriaregisk on X and Threads.

Rovner: Well, we’re going to take a week off from the news next week, but watch your feed for a special episode. We will be back with our panel after Labor Day. 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.

A divided three-judge federal appeals court panel has ruled that a lower court was wrong to try to reverse entirely the FDA’s approval of the abortion drug mifepristone. The panel did find, however, that the agency violated regulatory rules in making the drug more easily available and that those rules should be rolled back. In practice, nothing changes immediately, because the Supreme Court has blocked the lower court’s order that the drug effectively be removed from the U.S. market — for now.

The case is pivotal for the future of reproductive health, as the pill is part of a regimen that is now the most common way American women terminate early pregnancies and is also widely used by doctors to manage miscarriages.

Meanwhile, as President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act turns one, Medicare officials are preparing to unveil which 10 drugs will be the first to face price negotiation under the new law.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefalil

Read Shefali's stories

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Wednesday’s federal appeals court decision siding with conservative medical groups challenging mifepristone regulations has perhaps the biggest implications for the drug’s distribution via telemedicine, which has been key to securing abortion access for people in areas where abortion is unavailable.
• The ongoing legal threat to mifepristone is reverberating through the drug industry, as drugmakers worry challenges to the FDA’s scientific authority could cause serious problems for future drug development — especially in an industry that takes big financial risks on getting products approved.
• Texas is suing Planned Parenthood over past Medicaid payments made to the program, charging that the health organization “defrauded” the state, even though the claims were made while a court had specifically allowed Planned Parenthood to remain in the program. Still, the lawsuit emphasizes just how far Texas has gone, and will go, to maintain the legal authority to not support Planned Parenthood, even in its non-abortion work.
• The federal government is expected to release the list of 10 pharmaceuticals subject to Medicare price negotiations by Sept. 1. The drugs’ identities are the subject of much educated speculation, as Congress laid out in the law how drugs qualify for consideration — though even stakeholders in the drug industry are wondering which specific drugs will be up for discussion.
• A national survey of pharmacists finds drug shortages are widespread and leading to rationing at the pharmacy level. A lack of incentives to produce generic drugs is complicating supply-chain problems, leaving fewer options when there are manufacturing or other types of issues with a particular drugmaker.

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

Julie Rovner: Time’s “She Wasn’t Able to Get an Abortion. Now She’s a Mom. Soon She’ll Start 7th Grade,” by Charlotte Alter.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: MIT Technology Review’s “Microplastics Are Everywhere. What Does That Mean for Our Immune Systems”? by Jessica Hamzelou.

Shefali Luthra: The Atlantic’s “Right Price, Wrong Politics,” by Annie Lowrey.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “We’re on the Cusp of Another Psychedelic Era. But This Time Washington Is Along for the Ride,” by Erin Schumaker and Katherine Ellen Foley.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• States Newsroom/The Georgia Recorder’s “Study Cited by Texas Judge in Abortion-Pill Case Under Investigation,” by Sofia Resnick.
• Stat’s “From Drug Shortages to High Prices, U.S. System’s Shortcomings Have Deep Roots,” by Matthew Herper.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Abortion Pill’s Legal Limbo Continues

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’

Episode Title: Abortion Pill’s Legal Limbo Continues

Episode Number: 310

Published: Aug. 17, 2023

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Aug. 17, 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: Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Shefali Luthra: Hello.

Rovner: So, no interview this week but plenty of news, particularly for the middle of August, so we will get right to it. The breaking news this week is about abortion and about a Texas abortion case, because 2023. Technically, this news is out of New Orleans, where on Wednesday a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit federal Court of Appeals upheld, in part, a lower-court decision from Texas that found that the FDA was wrong to approve the abortion pill mifepristone back in the year 2000. Before we get any further in this discussion, we should point out that this decision does not impact the immediate availability of abortion pills. The Supreme Court earlier this spring issued a stay of the lower-court ruling, meaning nothing will change until the full outcome of the case is determined, presumably by the Supreme Court at some point, probably next year. But, Alice, remind us of what this case was about and then what the decision means.

Ollstein: Yeah. So this case is: A coalition of different anti-abortion medical groups that formed last year, specifically formed in the district that a very conservative judge was in charge of down in Texas, brought the case there. And they are going after both the original FDA approval of mifepristone more than two decades ago and a bunch of decisions the agency has made since then to make the pills easier for patients to obtain, like allowing mail delivery, like allowing their use longer into pregnancy than before — 10 weeks versus seven weeks — allowing nonphysicians to prescribe the pills, a bunch of different things.

Rovner: And allowing for a lower dose of the pill actually.

Ollstein: Yes, yes.

Rovner: Which is going to get significant in a second. Go ahead.

Ollstein: Definitely. We should talk about the labeling chaos that could result from this. But so basically, the lower-court judge went all in, agreed with everything they said, essentially, and more or less ordered a national ban. That got stayed. It remains stayed for now, but the 5th Circuit has now weighed in and endorsed some but not all of those arguments. They said, look, the statute of limitations has passed us by on challenging the original FDA approval of the drugs, but they sided with the groups in ordering FDA to get rid of all of those other subsequent decisions. And so this, if upheld by the Supreme Court — we know the Biden administration is already planning to appeal — would really put the pills out of reach for a lot of people. So, it would be a sharp curtailment, but not the total ban the groups were seeking.

Rovner: Yeah, Shefali, and this was obviously what the appeals court had been leaning towards anyway. We know that because that was what they had done before the Supreme Court overruled it. And certainly we know that Justice [Samuel] Alito and I believe Justice [Clarence] Thomas would also do this. So, there’s every reason to believe that this could well be the final outcome. What would it mean? So, the pill would still be approved, but only in the form it was allowed to be distributed before 2016?

Luthra: Precisely, which would be quite significant. You mentioned, right, the need to relabel pills based on the different formulation. We would have pills technically only approved up until seven weeks of pregnancy, although doctors could prescribe them off-label, through 12 weeks in all likelihood. But the telemedicine implications are probably some of the biggest, especially in states where they’ve seen large numbers of out-of-state patients coming for abortion care, right, because they’re near states with bans. Those clinics have really relied on telemedicine because it means they can see more people, and it’s quite safe, right? It’s endorsed by the World Health Organization. You don’t need someone to come in for two, in some cases three visits to get a couple of pills and take them at home. And to lose that would really just cut capacity and make abortions, which are already very difficult to obtain, even in states where it’s legal but there just aren’t as many clinics — like a Kansas, a New Mexico, etc. — if not impossible, very nearly so, just because the math doesn’t work in terms of providers versus patients in need.

Rovner: And the piece of this that I really don’t understand, and I read through the entire decision yesterday afternoon, was they said that the plaintiffs in the case cannot challenge the approval of the generic version of the drug, which was approved in 2019. But of course, the generic version of the drug was approved under the then-rules that that are now going to be rolled back. So you would — would you have a case for the brand name and the generic would have different labeling requirements? It seems very confusing.

Luthra: I think there are a lot of questions that are still open about what this means, right, not only for mifepristone but just for the precedents of FDA approval of medications at large, especially as we’ve seen so many more FDA-approved drugs become more politicized. And, I mean, that’s one of the reasons that so many medical groups have expressed deep concern about this case. It just opens a tremendous can of worms looking well beyond abortion and puts us in pretty uncharted territory for what comes next.

Rovner: And the drug industry is kind of freaked out. Sarah, I guess you could talk to this. I mean, the reliability of FDA approval is now called into question if anybody can basically go to court and say, “Nope, FDA, you shouldn’t have done that,” and possibly win, right?

Karlin-Smith: Right. I mean, they don’t want the scientific sort of authority of the FDA questioned. And I think, you know, like a lot of hot-button political issues where there’s maybe not a good side for them to be on, the pharmaceutical companies tend to try and stay out of abortion politics as much as they can. But some executives and so forth did join amicus briefs in this case because they are concerned about the precedent of FDA approval decisions being able to be challenged in court. And if nothing else, I think drug companies really, and any business to an extent, relies on, like, certainty. And so just having the loss of that certainty that an FDA decision really means, what it means is problematic for them. But I think also these are companies that sort of are based in science and medicine and would definitely prefer to have the assurance that those are the people that approved their drugs and kind of give that seal of approval and it means what it says.

Rovner: Yeah, and the drug industry, I think more than many others, which depends on long shots a lot. I mean, there’s just a lot of dry holes in the drug industry; you spent a lot of time and a lot of money on a drug that ends up not going anywhere. So if you spend a lot of time and a lot of money on a drug that does what it’s supposed to do and gets approved, I think that that could certainly dampen the enthusiasm if then a court could come and say, “Oops, nope.”

Karlin-Smith: And the reputation we talk a lot about, like drug pricing, on this show — the reputation of the FDA and the perceived quality and trustworthiness of its decisions is kind of why the drug companies can charge, to some degree, the prices they charge for their medicines versus, say, you know, we compare it to the supplement industry, which is very loosely regulated, and their claims are not really backed up in the same way by science and medicine. And you can buy those for much cheaper at the store. So their whole business model is really threatened by this.

Rovner: Yeah.

Ollstein: And I think it’s worth noting that one of the three judges on the panel wanted to go further and fully strip FDA approval from the drug, but he was overruled by his other two colleagues. But still, he wrote that dissenting opinion. And that could come into play if and when the Supreme Court takes this up.

Rovner: And he, of course, raised the specter of the Comstock Act, that 1800s-era anti-vice law that apparently some anti-abortion groups are hoping to sort of bring back into the 21st century — Are we in the 22nd century? I’m losing track — and try to figure out if you can just make all of this illegal.

Ollstein: Yes. Judge [James] Ho, who was appointed by [then-President Donald] Trump to the 5th Circuit, and his opinion went a lot further than his colleagues’ in embracing the arguments made by the challengers. So how much influence that has on the process going forward will be really interesting. You know, the Comstock Act has to do with things sent through the mail, and the concern from a lot of legal experts and medical groups is that the interpretation that Judge Ho and these groups are making could mean that sending anything that could potentially be used for an abortion, even if it’s medical equipment that’s also used for other things, could be in jeopardy. And this would be mail delivery. Even sending something to a state where abortion is protected by law could be challenged under this federal rule. And so, we’re definitely in a “throw things at the wall and see what sticks” kind of era. And this is one of the things they’re throwing at the wall.

Rovner: Yeah, just because nothing changes for now doesn’t mean that nothing is going to change. And we will obviously keep a very close eye on this. So last week we talked about a controversy surrounding one of the scientific studies that [District] Judge [Matthew] Kacsmaryk, the lower-court judge, relied on in his ruling. The study was by the Charlotte Lozier Institute. It found that women who had medical abortions were more likely to go to a hospital emergency room within 30 days than women who had surgical procedures. And we talked about how that paper is currently under review by the publisher of the journal the paper appeared in. During the discussion, I apparently misspoke about the paper’s findings, suggesting that it was just the raw number of ER visits that rose along with increased use of medication abortion rather than the rate of the visits. But nonetheless, this study is very much an outlier in three decades of research into the safety of the drug. And I say three decades because it was available in Europe many years before it was available in the United States. And the drug has otherwise been found to have very few serious complications, right?

Luthra: Right. I think you’re absolutely correct, Julie. The study remains an outlier. There remain serious methodological questions about how it came to its findings. And we have an incredibly rich body of research that continues to grow, that shows exactly what you said, which is that the complication rate for medication abortions remains incredibly low. Most people do not require follow-up medical care, especially not in an emergency room. And the reliance on that study in particular was quite striking because of what an outlier it is in the larger medical body of research.

Rovner: And it didn’t actually come up in the appeals court ruling, although they did say, and fair point, they acknowledged that the complication, the serious complication rate, is very low. But if it’s being used by a lot of people and we now know that medication abortion is more than half of all abortions, a very small percentage of a whole lot of people is still a fair number of people. Whether that is enough people to actually create the kind of havoc in emergency rooms that’s been suggested is a different question. But I think that the appeals court justices were fairly careful in the way they worded that. So the mifepristone ruling was not the only news this week about a Texas abortion case. Another Texas abortion case in front of Judge Kacsmaryk in fact: He held a hearing earlier this week in a case brought by the state of Texas to require Planned Parenthood to pay back more than a billion dollars in Medicaid reimbursements, not for abortions, but for family planning and other medical services covered by Medicaid. This one is a weird case even by Texas standards, right?

Ollstein: Yeah, and I’ll say that they’re suing them for more than a billion dollars, but they were only paid by Medicaid in the lower millions. You know, 17-ish million is what Planned Parenthood told me. So, the 1.8 billion is for penalties and damages. They’re accusing them of defrauding the state. So, there has been a many-years’ fight over Planned Parenthood’s participation in Medicaid in Texas specifically, also in other states. Planned Parenthood says that, you know, because lower courts for years blocked the state’s attempt to kick them out of Medicaid, they were perfectly allowed to continue providing nonabortion services, like contraception, tests, whatever, and be reimbursed for that. And the state coming back later and saying that they knowingly defrauded the Medicaid program, they see it as a political attack on them and their ability to keep providing services in the state.

Rovner: There was a court stay on Texas’ desire to kick them out of the Medicaid program, right, so at least at the time it was legal for them to bill Medicaid, and Texas paid the Medicaid claims that they billed, right?

Luthra: I think it’s also helpful to situate this in just a really long history of Texas doing whatever it can to get Planned Parenthood away from government dollars, including turning down millions in federal funding, starting their own state health program for reproductive health, just so that they could have the legal authority to not include Planned Parenthood. This is not really new, but it just is so striking because of the money at stake, because of sort of the tactics, and because of the implications in a world where Planned Parenthood isn’t even providing abortions in Texas anymore.

Rovner: This goes back probably before some of you guys were born, the efforts to sort of defund Planned Parenthood from state and federal dollars, even in states where Planned Parenthood never provided abortions. And there are a number of states where they never provided abortions. But there is a line in the Medicaid statute itself about free choice of providers for patients, and that’s what has been relied on. Lower courts have relied on that for years and years. Congress tried to change it and couldn’t. Texas is actually, I think, the first state that’s ever successfully gotten a court ruling that said they can cut Planned Parenthood out of their Medicaid program. So, it was not odd for Planned Parenthood, while this litigation was going on, to say, “We’re just going to continue to provide women who come to us with family planning and other health care services that we’ve been providing under Medicaid for generations.” But now we’ll see what Judge Kacsmaryk has to say. And then I imagine this will get appealed and we will see where this one ends up, too. Well, finally this week in reproductive health, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists announced the introduction of an online abortion training program, which has been a year in the making, that will give all OB-GYN residents, even in states with abortion bans, access to at least the basics in abortion care and in caring for early pregnancy loss, which is all often the same care. But I have to wonder whether this is going to make students any more willing to do their residencies in states that effectively restrict the rights to practice medicine according to evidence-based standards. I know we’ve talked about this before, but we’re looking at what could be a serious shortage of just women’s reproductive health care in general in abortion ban states, right, if the supply of students wanting to go there to do their residencies and hence stay on afterwards is going to start to dry up?

Ollstein: I mean, it’s already happening for sure. Applications are going down in these ban states. And, you know, when I saw the online curriculum, that’s better than nothing. But all the medical students and residents I’ve spoken to really stress that, in order to be trained and, for some specialties, board-certified, you need practical experience; you need to personally participate in many, many, many abortions to be fully qualified as a physician. And they really stress that the more you do, the more different complications you’re able to observe. And if you only do a few or none and just do online curriculum, you’re not going to be really prepared for a miscarriage situation or any of the many things that could come up in the future. And these could be life-or-death moments. And so to not have people trained and ready to respond in certain states where it’s already hard to recruit people because of, you know, it’s just seen as a less desirable place to be, this is yet another factor. On top of that, you have state attorneys general who have been very litigious and threatening to providers. And so, I’m hearing that that fear is making people not want to practice in particular states.

Luthra: And I think another factor that we don’t often sort of say out loud, but that’s really relevant when it comes to OB-GYNs in training, is that the majority of OB-GYNs are women. And given the age of when people finish medical school, etc., many of them are pursuing residency when they’re at a stage in their life where they might consider getting pregnant, which means that the risks are not just professional or educational; in many cases they are quite personal, and that’s a factor that many people are considering as well.

Rovner: And even the male OB-GYNs in training, many of them are married to women and, again, same age, thinking about, it’s time to start a family. Also, it’s not just the residents themselves, but the residents’ families. I’ve seen that sort of from both sides. We should point out, I mean, there are training programs now and they’re obviously — you know, it’s only been a year, so it’s hard to sort of create these things out of whole cloth — but where residents can travel to other states to get some hands-on experience and training that they want. But again, one of the things we forget sometimes about residents is they don’t earn a lot of money and it’s a disruption. I mean, it’s hard enough to move to a place to do your residency; to then have to sort of pick up and move someplace else for a couple of months to do a rotation is not terribly convenient either. So this is obviously still all being sorted out. But the education of sort of the next generation of reproductive health providers is definitely under question here, right?

Ollstein: And it’s not just the time needed; it’s often the money, because if these people are doing their residency at a public university hospital in a ban state, that public university hospital, under the state law, is afraid to give any money to support them going to another state for training. And so often people either have to apply for grants from foundations to cover that expense or even pay out of their own pockets. So, it’s a real heavy lift.

Rovner: It is. Well, in other news, and there is other news this week, President [Joe] Biden is taking a victory lap as the Inflation Reduction Act, that omnibus health-slash-energy-slash-tax bill, turns 1. But the fate of the highest-profile health policy in that law, calling for Medicare to negotiate the prices of some very expensive drugs, is still in some doubt, as drugmakers sue to try to block the program. Sarah, where is this, and when do we expect to get that list of the first 10 drugs the government wants to negotiate the price of? That’s due soon, right?

Karlin-Smith: Right. So the list is due by Sept. 1 at the latest. So that is a week, I think, from this Friday, or no, a little bit longer than that. But the expectation, I think, is we may get it before Sept. 1, because that’s the Friday before Labor Day weekend.

Rovner: Oh, I don’t know. They love to drop stuff the Friday before Labor Day.

Karlin-Smith: Sometimes they do, and sometimes they also want to take a break too. So, we’re expecting that list of 10 drugs, which would be — their negotiated prices would go into effect in 2026. There’s lots of reasonably well-educated guesses of what those drugs are, because the law sort of lays out how they select them and we have a general sense of how much money is spent on certain drugs in the U.S. and so forth. But Medicare has the most up-to-date data. So, there are still companies that kind of have a sense of, “Oh, I might be on the edge,” depending on how their sales have been in Medicare the past few years. So, people are really curious.

Rovner: Coincidentally or not so coincidentally, I’ve seen some of the speculation, and it is all of the drugs that you see all of those ads for, if you watch, if you still watch, you know, commercial television, on the news or on cable TV. I mean, there are so many ads, and it’s like, surprise, these are all the drugs that are on the likely list that Medicare is going to want to do something about the price of. I assume that is not a coincidence. I’m being snide.

Karlin-Smith: I think some of it is, right, to qualify for the list, you have to be in sort of the top spending categories. And part of that means you’re most likely to have to treat large populations of people. So when you get to drugs like that, like anticoagulants — I think there’s a few expected to be up there — blood thinners, some anti-diabetic medicines, trying to think of some of the other examples. These are kind of mass-market drugs that a lot of people, particularly in the Medicare population, need these medicines. Some cancer medicines, anti-inflammatory drugs. So, it’s not particularly surprising that you would see advertisements for them. And in a lot of cases, too, these are drugs that have some amount of brand competition for them. So, there are two newer blood thinners that might be on there. So, you know, that tends to lead to advertisement when there’s competition in a space. Same for the diabetes medicines and the anti-inflammatories; there’s a lot of expensive biologics in that space that compete.

Rovner: Well, when I’m in charge of the FDA, they’re not going to be able to use, like, songs from the ’60s and ’70s anymore, because that just makes me crazy. Well, meanwhile, in something related to this, drug shortages seem to be getting worse. There’s a new survey from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists that found that 99% of the 1,100 hospital pharmacists that responded said they were currently managing drug shortages, and one-third said those shortages are forcing them to ration, delay, or cancel treatment. And these aren’t minor drugs. They include cancer chemotherapies, anesthesia drugs, other things that can be difficult to get but important when you need them. Sarah, is this a manufacturing problem, or a marketing problem, or both? I mean, why are drug shortages so much worse now? It’s not all supply chain, is it?

Karlin-Smith: There’s some supply chain, and I think there’s still some supply chain issues that started during covid that are still impacting people. There are manufacturing concerns, depending on the company. You know, drug shortages have gotten a lot of attention recently, but really for probably the past decade or so that I’ve been covering the drug industry and following shortages, the reasons have tended to be the same: They tend to be older, sterile, injectable drugs that are harder to make. But yet, because they have gone generic, the prices have gone down so low that players tend to leave. So only a few players stay in the market because of the pricing situation. So then if they have any manufacturing problem, it can very easily lead to a shortage. Generic companies argue that, you know, there’s just not a lot of incentive for them to invest in redundancy or certain even manufacturing capabilities that might help prevent shortages. So, for better or worse, there really hasn’t been a lot of change in the reasons for these shortages over the years; it’s just that they keep happening.

Rovner: Yeah, well, it’s funny. Matthew Herper over at Stat News has kind of a provocative piece about all of this, suggesting, as you say, that the shortages right now are, in large part, due to the incentives to find the cheapest generics, but that this new Medicare negotiation process — which includes a different clock; it will be based on time on the market rather than time under patent — could encourage drugmakers to do the opposite thing, to sit on new drugs until they can test for all possible uses because they don’t want to bring them to market until they think they can make the most money, because that’s going to determine how long before there can be competition. I mean, is this ever really going to work, being a purely capitalist market?

Karlin-Smith: I mean, there are definitely people, you know, in the shortage space that have argued that some of the current shortages make a good case for public manufacturing of drugs. And actually, it might surprise some people, but the U.S. has engaged in the past in public manufacturing. There are some efforts going on now, like in California; they’re looking into some public manufacturing. So that’s on the generic side. On some of the other situations that Matthew Herper is describing with the IRA, it’s a bit more complicated because essentially the IRA does give companies some amount of time on the market without negotiation. But a lot of drugs, they have all these multiple indications. And so companies are just trying to figure out potentially how they can game their products to make the most amount of money before they’re subject to negotiation. And I know Medicare is quite aware of some of this stuff and is thinking about how they can set up their regulations to protect against that. But not everything is within their control. So we’ll see what happens, because there is concern, you know, particularly I think in the orphan or rare disease space, that a company may delay getting a rare disease indication based on when they think they might get subject to drug negotiations.

Rovner: Every time you think, Oh, they can just lower the price of drugs, it’s super, super complicated. All right. Well, finally this week, there’s something I’ve been trying to get to for a couple of weeks: Before Congress left for the August recess, it passed, on a bipartisan vote, a bill that could finally dethrone UNOS, the United Network for Organ Sharing. UNOS has been the outside organization handling the collection and distribution of human organs for transplant since the federal government began the federal transplant program in 1984. Over the years, UNOS has been roundly criticized for its handling, or mishandling, of the system. But the legislation that originally created the federal organ transplant program had been interpreted not to allow anyone else to compete for the contract to run the network. So, this legislation changes that, for the first time letting other entities see if they can do a better job so maybe fewer people will die waiting for transplanted organs. This feels a lot more important than the attention that it got, I think because there was so much else happening as Congress was leaving town. Or does it feel important to me because I spent so many years and so many hours watching Congress fight over this?

Karlin-Smith: I think it is important. There’s certainly been a lot of big exposés of problems in the system over the years. And there’s also been a lot of, when I’ve covered this more closely in the past, like, tensions between different parts of the country in sort of figuring out how organs are allocated and which parts of regions get impacted or not. So there has always been, like, political dynamics here. I think the underlying thing to watch with this overhaul is that part of what goes on here is we just don’t have enough organs for the number of people that need it. So, you can certainly make improvements and make sure that all the organs we have get to people and get done in the fairest way possible, because there have been lots of concerns around equity issues, particularly that Black people and other people of different ethnicities have not been, you know, getting the organs they deserve. But the question becomes, you know, can anybody do anything about a shortage of organs, and how do you really handle that? I think there’s always going to be tensions on this topic if you don’t have enough organs.

Rovner: Yeah, these were the ultimate formula fights, if you will. You know, it’s usually over money. In the ’90s and early 2000s, it was literally over organs, over, you know, how far you could ship donated organs and whether the large transplant centers should keep more because they do more organ transplants and therefore are more likely to have success. And boy, this fight has been going on for a very long time, but this is at least a step, I think, towards resolving it. All right. Well, that is this week’s news. We will take a quick break and then we will come back and do our extra credit. Hey, “What the Health?” listeners, you already know that few things in health care are ever simple. So, if you like our show, I recommend you also listen to “Tradeoffs,” a podcast that goes even deeper into our costly, complicated, and often counterintuitive health care system, hosted by longtime health care journalist and friend Dan Gorenstein. “Tradeoffs” digs into the evidence and research data behind health care policies and tells the stories of real people impacted by decisions made in C-suites, doctor’s offices, and even Congress. You can subscribe to “Tradeoffs” wherever you get your podcasts. 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: My piece is from The Atlantic, by Annie Lowrey. The headline is “Right Price, Wrong Politics.” It is incredibly smart. It is about how there is all this conversation about people wanting to move to states where they have access to health care protected, whether that is abortion or gender-affirming care, etc., etc. There is one problem, which is that those states are largely ones where it is much more expensive to live, because of housing prices. And if you want to live in a place where you can afford a home, those are often the states with restrictions on health care. I love this piece. I think there is so much conversation about, Why don’t people simply move to a place where state laws reflect what they would like? And the answer is it’s really not attainable for most people. And I think she does a great job of explaining why that is and putting it in the context of policy choices and not just sort of individual human elements.

Rovner: I was super jealous of this piece. It was like, Oh, yeah, of course. Alice.

Ollstein: I chose a piece by a couple of my colleagues, and it’s called “We’re on the Cusp of Another Psychedelic Era. But This Time Washington Is Along for the Ride.” And it’s about how much bipartisan support there is in Congress right now for making psychedelics more available as medicine to treat things like PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder] or depression. There are just a lot more clinical trials going on right now and just support for making them available through the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] as sort of a test of how a broader population might respond. You know, we’re talking about things like psilocybin, things like ketamine, things like ecstasy, that have shown a lot of promise in having a therapeutic benefit for mental health conditions that have resisted other forms of treatment. So, fascinating stuff.

Rovner: It is. Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: I took a look at a piece in MIT Tech Review called “Microplastics Are Everywhere. What Does That Mean for Our Immune Systems?” And it just does a good job of helping you understand what the research has shown about how these very tiny particles may impact your immune cells and then impact our ability to fight off diseases and maybe even lead to more challenges with antibiotics and antibiotic resistance. And I’ve been fascinated by all the coverage of this, because this — huge problem and, you know, they talk about them being in our air and in the deepest part of the ocean. And, you know, it’s just one of those things that we have to kind of grapple with as a society, like health, economic consequences, and so forth. So, it’s worth looking at.

Rovner: More things to keep us awake at night.

Karlin-Smith: Exactly.

Karlin-Smith: A list of more things to keep us awake at night. My story this week is one of the most talked about on social media. It’s from Time, and it’s called “She Wasn’t Able to Get an Abortion. Now She’s a Mom. Soon She’ll Start 7th Grade,” by Charlotte Alter. And as the headline indicates, it’s kind of a gutting piece about a 12-year-old in Mississippi who was raped in her own yard, was too scared to tell anyone, and ended up having a baby at age 13. It’s another story about all those things that are, quote, “made up,” or not supposed to happen. Except they did. She might have been eligible for a rape exception, except there are no abortion providers left in the state, and her mother didn’t know that rape exceptions were a possibility. In the end, the closest place for her to have gotten an abortion was Chicago, which was too far and too expensive for her family. So now she has a son while she’s going to middle school. I’m sure we will see more of these as time progresses. All right. That is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us too. Special thanks, as always, to our amazing engineer, Francis Ying. And as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me or X me or whatever. I’m still there, @jrovner, also on Bluesky and Threads. Shefali?

Luthra: I’m @shefalil.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein.

Rovner: Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: I’m @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith.

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.

Ohio voters — in a rare August election — turned out in unexpectedly high numbers to defeat a ballot measure that would have made it harder to pass an abortion-rights constitutional amendment on the ballot in November. The election was almost a year to the day after Kansas voters also stunned observers by supporting abortion rights in a ballot measure.

Meanwhile, the percentage of Americans without health insurance dropped to an all-time low of 7.7% in early 2023, reported the Department of Health and Human Services. But that’s not likely to continue, as states boot from the Medicaid program millions of people who received coverage under special eligibility rules during the pandemic.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Emmarie Huetteman of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico, and Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Emmarie Huetteman
KFF Health News

@emmarieDC

Read Emmarie's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Rachel Roubein
The Washington Post

@rachel_roubein

Read Rachel's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• It should not have come as much of a surprise that Ohio voters sided with abortion-rights advocates. Abortion rights so far have prevailed in every state that has considered a related ballot measure since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, including in politically conservative states like Kentucky and Montana.
• Moderate Republicans and independents joined Democrats in defeating the Ohio ballot question. Opponents of the measure — which would have increased the threshold of votes needed to approve state constitutional amendments to 60% from a simple majority — had not only cited its ramifications for the upcoming vote on statewide abortion access, but also for other issues, like raising the minimum wage.
• A Texas case about exceptions under the state’s abortion ban awaits the input of the state’s Supreme Court. But the painful personal experiences shared by the plaintiffs — notable in part because such private stories were once scarce in public discourse — pressed abortion opponents to address the consequences for women, not fetuses.
• The uninsured rate hit a record low earlier this year, a milestone that has since been washed away by states’ efforts to strip newly ineligible Medicaid beneficiaries from their rolls as the covid-19 public health emergency ended.
• The promise of diabetes drugs to assist in weight loss has attracted plenty of attention, yet with their high price tags and coverage issues, one thorny obstacle to access remains: How could we, individually and as a society, afford this?
• Lawmakers are asking more questions about the nature of nonprofit, or tax-exempt, hospitals and the care they provide to their communities. But they still face an uphill battle in challenging the powerful hospital industry.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Kate McEvoy, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors, about how the “Medicaid unwinding” is going as millions have their eligibility for coverage rechecked.

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’ “How the Texas Trial Changed the Story of Abortion Rights in America,” by Sarah Varney.

Joanne Kenen: Fox News’ “Male Health Care Leaders Complete ‘Simulated Breastfeeding Challenge’ at Texas Hospital: ‘Huge Eye-Opener’,” by Melissa Rudy.

Rachel Roubein: Stat’s “From Windows to Wall Art, Hospitals Use Virtual Reality to Design More Inclusive Rooms for Kids,” by Mohana Ravindranath.

Emmarie Huetteman: KFF Health News’ “The NIH Ices a Research Project. Is It Self-Censorship?” by Darius Tahir.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• Politico’s “Abortion Rights Won Big in Ohio. Here’s Why It Wasn’t Particularly Close,” by Madison Fernandez, Alice Miranda Ollstein, and Zach Montellaro.
• KFF Health News’ “Seeking Medicare Coverage for Weight Loss Drugs, Pharma Giant Courts Black Influencers,” by Rachana Pradhan.
• Stat’s “Alarmed by Popularity of Ozempic and Wegovy, Insurers Wage Multi-Front Battle,” by Elaine Chen.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: On Abortion Rights, Ohio Is the New Kansas

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: On Abortion Rights, Ohio Is the New KansasEpisode Number: 309Published: Aug. 10, 2023

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping a day early this week, on Wednesday, Aug. 9, at 3:30 p.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.

Joanne Kenen: Hey, everybody.

Rovner: Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Rachel Roubein: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And my colleague and editor here at KFF Health News Emmarie Huetteman.

Emmarie Huetteman: Hey, everyone. Glad to be here.

Rovner: So later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with Kate McEvoy, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. She’s got her pulse on how that big post-public health emergency “Medicaid unwinding” is going. And she’ll share some of that with us. But first, this week’s news. I guess the biggest news of the week is out of Ohio, which, in almost a rerun of what happened in Kansas almost exactly a year ago, voters soundly defeated a ballot issue that would have made it harder for other voters this fall to reverse the legislature’s strict abortion ban. If you’re having trouble following that, so did they in Ohio. [laughs] This time, the fact that the abortion rights side won wasn’t as much of a surprise because every statewide abortion ballot question has gone for the abortion rights side since Roe v. Wade was overturned last year. What do we take away from Ohio? Other than it looked a lot like … the split looked a lot like Kansas. It was almost 60-40.

Kenen: It shows that there’s a coalition around this issue that is bigger than Democrat or Republican. Ohio was the classic swing state that has turned into a conservative Republican-voting state — not on this issue. This was clearly independents, moderate Republicans joined Democrats to … 60-40, roughly, is a pretty big win. Yes, we’ve seen it in other states. It’s still a pretty big win.

Roubein: I agree. And I think one of my colleagues, Patrick Marley, and I spent some time just driving around and traveling Ohio in July. And one of the things that we did find is that — this ballot measure to increase the threshold for constitutional amendments is 60% — it had in some, in many, ways turned into a proxy war over abortion. But, in some ways, both sides also didn’t talk about abortion when they were, you know, canvassing different voters. You know, they use different tools in the toolbox. I was following around someone from Ohio Right to Life and, you know, he very much said, “Abortion is the major issue to me.” But, you know, they tried to kind of bring together the side that supported this. Other issues like legalizing marijuana and raising the minimum wage, and, you know, the abortion rights side was very much a part of, you know, the opposition here. But when some canvassers went out — my colleague Patrick had traveled and followed some, and some, you know, kind of focused on other issues like, you know, voters having a voice in policy and keeping a simple majority rule.

Rovner: Yeah, I think it’s important — for those who have not been following this as closely as we have — what the ballot measure was was to make future ballot measures — and they said they were not going to have them in August anymore, which, this was the last one — in order to amend the constitution by referendum, you would need a 60% majority rather than a 50% majority. And just coincidentally, there is an abortion ballot measure on Ohio’s ballot for November, and it’s polling at about 58%. But, yes, this would have applied to everything, and it was defeated.

Kenen: And it’s part of a larger trend. It began before the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Over the last couple of years, you’ve seen conservative states move to tighten these rules for ballot initiatives. And that’s because more liberal positions have been winning. I mean, Medicaid, the Medicaid expansion on the ballot, has won, and won big. Only one was even close …

Rovner: In very red states!

Kenen: They often won very big in a number of very, very conservative states, places like Idaho and Nebraska. So, you know, there’s always been … the conventional wisdom is that, you know, the political parties are more extreme than many voters, that the Democratic Party is for the left and the Republican Party is for the right. And there are a lot of people who identify with one party or the other but aren’t … who are more moderate or, in this case, more liberal on Medicaid. And Medicaid … what was it, seven states? I think it’s seven. Seven really conservative states. And then the abortion has won in every single state. And there’s a little bit of conversation and it’s … very early. And I don’t know if it’s going to go anywhere, but if I’ve heard it and written a bit about it, conservative lawmakers have heard about it, too, which is there are groups interested in trying to get some gun safety initiatives on ballots. So that’s complicated. And it may not happen. But they’re seeing, I mean, that’s the classic example of both a criminal justice and a public health issue — so we can talk about it — a classic example where the country is much more in the center.

Rovner: Well, let us move to Texas, because that’s where we always end up when we talk about abortion. You may remember that lawsuit where several women who nearly died from pregnancy complications sued the state to clarify when medical personnel are able to intercede without being subjected to fines and/or jail sentences. Well, the women won, at least for a couple of days. A Texas district judge who heard the case ruled in their favor, temporarily blocking the Texas ban for women with pregnancy complications. But then the state appealed, and a Texas appeals court blocked the lower-court judge’s blocking of part of the ban. If you didn’t follow that, it just means that legally nothing has changed in Texas. And now the case goes to the Texas Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority. So we pretty much know what’s going to happen. But whether these women ultimately win or lose their case may not be the most important thing. And, to explain why I’m going to do my extra credit early this week. It’s by my KFF Health News colleague Sarah Varney. It’s called “How the Texas Trial Changed the Story of Abortion Rights in America.” She writes that this trial was particularly significant because it put abortion foes on the defensive by graphically depicting harm to women of abortion bans — rather than to fetuses. And it’s also about the power of people publicly telling their stories. I’ve done a lot of stories over the years about women whose very wanted pregnancies went very wrong, very late. And, I have to tell you, it’s been hard to find these women. And when you find them, it’s been really hard to get them to talk to a journalist. So, the fact that we’re seeing more and more people actually come out publicly, you know, may do for this issue what, you know, perhaps what gay rights, you know, what people coming out as gay did for gay marriage? I don’t know. What do you guys think?

Kenen: Well, I think these stories have been really compelling, but they’re also, they’re the most dramatic and maybe easiest to push back. But it’s, you know, there’s a whole lot of other reasons women want abortions. And the focus — and it’s life and death, so the focus, quite rightfully, has to be on these really extreme cases. But that’s not … it’s still in some ways shifting attention from the larger political discussion about choice and rights. But, clearly, some of these states, we’ve seen so many stories of women who, their lives are at stake, their doctors know it, and they just don’t think they have the legal power; they’re afraid of the consequences if they’re second-guessed. There are tremendous financial and imprisonment [risks] for a doctor who is deemed to have done an unnecessary abortion. And this idea that’s taken hold … among some conservatives is that there’s never a need for a medical abortion. And that’s just not true.

Rovner: And yet, I mean, what this trial and a lot of things in Sarah’s piece too point out is that that line between miscarriage and abortion is really kind of fuzzy in a lot of cases. You know, if you go to the hospital with a miscarriage and they’re going to say, “Well, did you initiate this miscarriage?” And we’ve seen women thrown in jail before for losing pregnancies, with them saying, “You know, you threw yourself down the stairs to end this pregnancy.” That actually happened, I think it was in Indiana. So this is —

Kenen: And miscarriage is very common.

Rovner: That was what I was saying.

Kenen: Early miscarriage is very common. Very, very common.

Huetteman: One of the things that’s so striking about the past year, since Dobbs overturned Roe v. Wade ,is that we’ve seen this kind of national education about what pregnancy is and how dangerous it can be and how care needs to really be flexible to meet those sorts of challenges. And this actually got me thinking about something that another familiar voice on this podcast, Alice Miranda Ollstein, and some colleagues wrote this morning about the Ohio outcome, which is they pointed out that the anti-abortion movement really hasn’t evolved in terms of the arguments that they’re making in the past year about why abortion should continue to be less and less available. Meanwhile, we’ve got these, like, really incredible, really emotional, moving stories from women who have experienced this firsthand. And that’s a hard message to overcome when you’re trying to reach voters in particular.

Rovner: And it’s interesting; both sides like to take — you know, they all go to the hardest cases. So, for years and years, the anti-abortion side has, you know, has gone to the hardest cases. And that’s why they talk about abortion in the ninth month up till birth, which isn’t a thing, but they talk about it. And you know, now the abortion rights side has some hard cases now that abortions are harder to get. Well, while we are on the subject of Texas lawsuits, States Newsroom — and thank you for sending this my way, Joanne — has a story reporting that the publisher of the scientific paper that both the lower court judge and the appeals court judges used to conclude that the abortion drug mifepristone causes frequent complications — it does not — is being reviewed for potential scientific misconduct. The paper comes from the Charlotte Lozier Institute, which is the research arm of the anti-abortion group the Susan B. Anthony List. Sage, which is the publisher of the journal that the paper appeared in, has posted something called an expression of concern, saying that the publisher and editor, quote, “were alerted to potential issues regarding the representation of data in the article and author conflicts of interest. SAGE has contacted the authors of this article and an investigation is underway.” This was sort of a whistleblower by a pharmacist who looked at the way the data in this paper was put together and says, “No, that’s really very misleading.” I don’t think I’ve ever seen this, though; I’ve never seen a scientific paper that’s now being questioned for its political bent, a peer-reviewed scientific paper. I mean, this could change a lot of things, couldn’t it?

Kenen: Well, not if people decide that they still think it’s true. I mean, look at — you know, the vaccine autism paper was retracted. That wasn’t initially political. It’s become more political over the years; it wasn’t political at the time. That was retracted. And people have been jumping up and down screaming, “It was retracted! It was retracted!” And, you know, millions of people still believe it. So, I mean, legally, I’m not sure how much it changes. I mean, I thought we had all heard that there were flaws in this study. This article was good because I hadn’t been aware of how deeply flawed and in all the many ways it was flawed. And also the whistleblower yarn was interesting. I’m not sure how much it changes anything.

Rovner: Well, I’m thinking not in terms of this case. And by the way, I think we didn’t say this, that the study was of emergency room visits by women who’d had either surgical or medical abortions. And the contention was that medical abortions were more dangerous than surgical abortions because more women ended up in the emergency room. But as several people have pointed out, more people ended up in the emergency room after medical abortions because there have been so many more medical abortions over the years. I mean, you don’t actually have to be a data scientist to see some of the problems.

Kenen: Right. And some of them also weren’t that — really, were nervous, and they didn’t know what was normal and they went to the ER because they were scared and they really were safe. They were not — they didn’t need — you know, they just weren’t sure how much pain and discomfort or bleeding you’re supposed to have. And they went and they were reassured and were sent home. So it’s not even that they really had a medical emergency or that they were harmed.

Rovner: Or that they had a complication.

Kenen: Right. There were many flaws pointed out with this research.

Rovner: But my broader question is, I mean, if people are going to start questioning the politics of scientific papers, I mean, I could see the other side going after this.

Kenen: Well, there’s climate science, too, that’s bad. I mean, I don’t think this is actually unique. I think it’s egregious. But there were studies minimizing the risk of smoking, which was also a political business, commercial. Climate is certainly political. I mean, I think this is sort of the most politicized and most acute example, but I don’t think it’s the only one.

Roubein: And I think, Julie, as you’d mentioned, I think when [U.S. District Judge] Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas came down with his decision — you know, for instance, there are media outlets — that my colleagues at the Post did a story just kind of unpacking some of the kind of flaws and some of the studies that were used to make, you know, a court decision.

Rovner: Yeah, to give the judge what he assumes to be evidence that this is a dangerous drug. So it’s — yeah.

Kenen: Which he came in believing, we know, from the profiles of him and his background.

Rovner: Right. All right, well, let us move on. The official Census Bureau estimate of how many people lack health insurance won’t be out until next month. But the Department of Health and Human Services is out with a report based on that other big federal population survey that shows the uninsured rate early this year was at its lowest level since records started being kept, which I think was in the 1980s: 7.7%. Now, that’s clearly going to be the high point for the fewest number of people uninsured, at least for a while, because clearly not all of the millions of people who are losing or about to lose their Medicaid coverage are going to end up with other insurance. But I remember — Joanne, you will, too — when the rate was closer to 18% … was a huge news story, and the thing that triggered the whole health reform debate in the first place. I’m surprised that there’s been so little attention paid to this.

Kenen: Because, you know … [unintelligible] … it’s so yesterday. And also, as you alluded to, you know, we’re in the middle of the Medicaid unwinding. So the numbers are going up again now. And we don’t know. We know that it’s a couple of million people. I think 3 million might be the last —

Rovner: I think it’s 4 [million], it’s up to 4.

Kenen: Four, OK. And some of them will get covered again and some of them will find other sources of coverage. But right now, there’s an uptick, not a downtick.

Roubein: And I think when you look at just, like, estimates of what the insured and the uninsured rates would be in 2030, like, the CMS’ [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] analysis, one of the other questions is, you know, whether the enhanced Obamacare subsidies continue past 2025. So there’s Medicaid and then there’s also some other kind of question marks and cliffs coming up on how and whether it will fluctuate.

Rovner: No, it’s worth watching. And remember, when the census numbers come out, those will be for 2022. Well, moving on, we have two stories this week looking at the potential cost of those breakthrough obesity drugs, but through two very different lenses. One is from my KFF Health News colleague Rachana Pradhan, details how the makers of the current “it” drug, Ozempic, which is Novo Nordisk, in an effort to get the votes to lift the Medicare payment ban on weight loss drugs, is quietly contributing large amounts of money to groups like the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. It’s sort of a backdoor lobbying that’s pretty age-old, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. The other story, by Elaine Chen at Stat, looks at how health insurers are pushing back hard against the off-label use of diabetes medications that also work to help people lose weight. They’re doing things like allowing the more expensive weight loss drugs only if people have tried and failed other methods or disallowing them if the other methods had been slightly successful. So, if you take a lesser drug and you lose enough weight, they won’t let you take the better drug because, look, you lost weight on the other drug. We’ve talked about this, obviously, before: These drugs, on the one hand, have the potential to make a lot of people both healthier and happier. There’s a study out this week that shows that Mounjaro, the Eli Lilly drug, actually reduces heart disease by 20%.

Kenen: In people who have heart disease.

Rovner: Right, in people who have heart disease.

Kenen: It’s not lowering everybody’s risk.

Rovner: But still, I mean, everybody’s — well, I mean, there are medical indications for using these drugs for weight loss. But if everybody who wants them could get them, it would literally break the bank. Nobody can afford to give everybody who’s eligible for these drugs these drugs. Is the winner here going to be the side with the most effective lobbying, or is that too cynical?

Huetteman: Isn’t that always the winner? Speaking of cynical.

Rovner: Yeah, in health care.

Kenen: Well, I mean, I also think there’s questions about, like, these drugs clearly are really wonderful for people who they were designed for; you don’t have to be on insulin. They’re having not just weight loss and diabetes. There are apparently cardiac and other — you know, these are probably really good drugs. But there are a lot of people who do not have diabetes or heart disease who want them because they want to lose 20 pounds. And some of them are being told you have to take it for the rest of your life. I mean, I just know this anecdotally, and I’m sure we all know it anecdotally.

Rovner: Right. It’s like statins.

Kenen: Yes.

Rovner: Or blood pressure medication. If you stop taking your blood pressure medication, your blood pressure goes back up.

Kenen: Right. So, I mean, should the goal for the weight loss be, “OK, this is going to help you take off that weight and then you’re going to have to maintain it through diet and exercise and healthy lifestyle,” blah, blah, blah, which is hard for people. We know that. Or are we putting healthy people on a really expensive drug that changes an awful lot of things about their body indefinitely? We don’t have safety data for lifelong use in otherwise healthy people. So, you know, I’m always a little worried because even the best clinical trial is small compared to the entire — it’s small and it’s time-limited. And maybe these drugs are going to turn out to be absolutely phenomenal and we’re going to all live another 20 healthy years. But maybe not, you know. Or maybe they’re going to be really great for a certain subpopulation, but, you know, we’re not going to want to put it in the water supply. So, I still think that there’s this sort of pell-mell rush. And I think it’s partly because there’s a lot of money at stake. And it’s also, like, most people who are overweight have tried to lose it, and it’s very difficult to lose and maintain weight. So, you know, people want an easier way to do it. And I think the other thing is right now it’s an injection. There are side effects for some people on discomfort. There probably will be an oral version, a pill, sometime fairly soon, which will open — you know, there are people who don’t want to take a shot who would take a pill. It also means you might be able to tell — I mean, I don’t know the science of the pills, but it would make sense to me that you could take a lower dose, you know, maybe ease into it without the side effects, or could you stay on it longer with fewer problems? I mean, we’re just the very beginning of this, but it’s a huge amount of money.

Rovner: Yeah. You could see — I mean, my big question, though, is why can’t we force the drugmakers to lower the price? That would, if not solve the problem, make it a lot better. I mean, really, we’re going to have to wait until there is generic competition?

Kenen: It’s not just this.

Rovner: Yeah.

Kenen: I mean, it’s all sorts of cancer treatments and it’s hepatitis treatments. And it’s, I mean, there’s a lot of expensive drugs out there. So, this one just has a lot of demand because it makes you skinny.

Rovner: Well, that was the thing. We went through this with the hepatitis C drugs, which were really super expensive. It’s much more like that.

Kenen: Well, they seemed super expensive at the time —

Rovner: Not so much anymore.

Kenen: — but maybe for a thousand dollars, in retrospect.

Rovner: All right. Well, let’s move on. So, speaking of powerful lobbies, let’s talk about hospitals. Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley and Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren — now, there is an unlikely couple — are among those asking the IRS to more carefully examine tax-exempt hospitals to make sure they’re actually benefiting the community in exchange for not paying taxes, which is supposed to be the deal. Now, Sen. Grassley has been on this particular hobbyhorse for many, many years, I think probably more than 20, but not much ever seems to come of this. I can’t tell you how many workshops I’ve been to on, you know, how to measure community benefits that tax-exempt hospitals are providing. Any inkling that this time is going to be any different?

Roubein: Well, hospitals don’t tend to be sort of the losers. They try and kind of frame themselves as, like, “We’re your sort of friendly neighborhood hospital,” and every — I mean, every congressman, most congressmen have, you know, hospitals in their district. So they they get lobbied a lot, though, you know — I mean, this is a different issue, but particularly on the House side, hospitals are facing site-neutral payments, which if that actually went through Congress would be a loss. So yeah, but lawmakers have found it in general hard to take on the hospital industry.

Rovner: Yeah, very much so.

Kenen: Yeah. I mean, I think that we think of nonprofits and for-profits as, they’re different, but they’re not as different as we think they are, in that, you know, nonprofits are getting a tax break and they have to reinvest their profits. But it doesn’t mean they’re not making a lot of money. Some of them are. I mean, some of them have, you know, we’ve all walked into fancy nonprofits with, you know, fancy art and marble floors and so on and so forth. And we’ve all been in nonprofits that are barely keeping their doors open. So it’s your tax status. It’s not really, you know, your ethical status or the quality of care. I mean, there’s good nonprofits, there’s good for-profits. You know, this whole thing is like, if I were a hospital, I would be getting this huge tax break, and what am I doing to deserve it? And that’s the question.

Rovner: And I think the argument is, you know, that the 7.7% uninsured we were talking about, that hospitals are supposed to be providing care as part of their community benefit that the federal government now is ending up paying for. I think that’s sort of the frustration. If nonprofit hospitals were doing what they were supposed to do, it would cost federal and state governments less money, which always surprises me because this is not gone after more. I mean, Grassley has spent his whole career working on various types of government fraud. So this is totally in line for him. But it’s never just seemed to be a big priority for any administration.

Huetteman: There’s a little bit of an X factor here. Look at the fact that Grassley and Warren are talking about this publicly now. Maybe I’m just really optimistic from all the journalism we’ve been doing about projects like “Bill of the Month.” But the reality is that a lot of people are now seeing reporting that’s showing to them what nonprofit hospitals are actually doing when it comes to pursuing patients who don’t pay bills. And what it means to have community benefit comes into question a lot when you talk about wage garnishment, suing patients who are low-income for their medical debt. These are things that journalists have uncovered over and over again, happening at — ding, ding, ding — nonprofit hospitals. It’s harder to argue that hospitals are just doing their best for people when you have these stories of poor people who are losing their homes over unpaid medical bills, for instance. And I think that right now, when we’re in this political moment where health care costs are so, so potent to people and so important, I mean, could we see that this will actually be more effective, that we’re heading towards something that’s more effective? Maybe.

Rovner: Well, repeats the journalist, as we all are, the power of storytelling. Definitely the public is primed. I imagine that’s why they’re doing it now. We’ll see what comes of it.

Kenen: think the public is primed for bad practices. I’m not sure how many patients understand if the hospital they go to is a nonprofit or a for-profit. I think the public understands that everything in health care costs too much and that there are bad actors and greed. There’s a difference between profit and greed, and I think many people would say that we’re now in an era of greed. And not everybody in the health care sector — before anybody calls us up and shouts, “Not everybody who provides care is greedy” — but we’ve seen, you know, it is clearly out there. You know, you had Zeke Emanuel on a couple of weeks ago. Remember what he said, that, you know, 10 years ago, some people still liked their health care and now nobody likes their health care, rich or poor.

Rovner: Yeah, he’s right. All right. Well, that is this week’s news. Now, we’ll play my interview with Kate McEvoy of the National Association of Medicaid Directors about how the Medicaid unwinding is going. And one note before you listen: Kate frequently refers to the federal CMCS, which is not a misspeak; it stands for the Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, which is the branch of CMS, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, that deals with Medicaid. So, here’s the interview:

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast Kate McEvoy, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors, which is pretty much exactly what the name says, a group where state Medicaid officials can share information and ideas. Kate, welcome to “What the Health?”

Kate McEvoy: Good afternoon. Thanks for having me.

Rovner: Obviously, the Medicaid unwinding, which we have talked about a lot on the podcast, is Topic A for your members right now. Remind us again which Medicaid recipients are having their coverage eligibility rechecked? It’s not just those in the expansion group from the Affordable Care Act, right?

McEvoy: It’s not, no. Each and every person served by the country nationwide has to be reevaluated from an eligibility standpoint this year.

Rovner: What do we know about how it’s going? We’re seeing lots of reports that suggest the vast majority of people losing coverage are for paperwork reasons, not because they’ve been found to be no longer eligible. I know you recently surveyed your members. What are they telling you about this?

McEvoy: So, I first want to say this is an unprecedented task and it’s obviously historically significant for everyone served by the program. The volume of the work, and also the complexity, makes it a challenging task for all states and territories. But what we are seeing to date is a few things. First, we have seen an incredible effort on the part of states and territories to saturate really every means of communicating with their membership, really getting out that message around connecting with the programs, especially if an individual has moved during the period of the pandemic, which is very typical for people served by Medicaid. So that saturation of messaging and use of new means of connecting with people, like texting, really does represent a tremendous advance for the Medicaid program that has traditionally relied on a lot of complex, formal, legal notices to people. So that seems like a very positive thing. What we are seeing, and this is not unexpected, is that, you know, for reasons related to complex life circumstances and competing considerations, many people are not responding to those notices, no matter how we are transmitting those messages. And so that is a piece that is of great interest and concern to all of us, notably Medicaid directors wanting to make sure that eligible folks do not lose coverage simply because they are not responsive to the requests for more information. So we’re at a point where we’re beyond that initial push around messaging and now are really focused on means of protecting people who remain eligible, either through automatic review of their eligibility — the ex parte process — or by restoring them through such means as reconsideration. That’s really the main focus right now.

Rovner: And there’s that 90-day reconsideration window. Is that … how does that work?

McEvoy: So the federal law gives this period of 90 days to families and children within which they can be renewed with very little effort, essentially removing the responsibility to complete a new application. We also have long-standing help to people called “presumptive eligibility.” So if someone goes to a federally qualified health center or, more unfortunately, goes to the hospital, many of those types of providers can restore someone’s eligibility. So those are important protective pieces. We also know from the survey that you mentioned of our membership that many states and territories are extending those reconsideration protections to all coverage groups — also including older adults and people with disabilities.

Rovner: So are there any states that are doing anything that’s different and innovative? I remember when CHIP [the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program] was being stood up — and boy, that was a long time ago, like 1999 — South Carolina put flyers in pizza boxes, and some other state put flyers in sneaker boxes for back-to-school stuff. Are there better ways to maybe get ahold of these people?

McEvoy: So I think the answer is: a lot of different channels. Our colleagues in Louisiana have a partnership with Family Dollar stores to essentially feature this information on receipts. There’s a lot of work at pharmacy counters. Some of the big chain pharmacies have QR codes and other means of prompting people around their Medicaid eligibility. There’s going to be a big push for the back-to-school effort. And I think CMS and states are really interested, particularly in ensuring that children do not lose coverage even if their parents have regained employment and they’re no longer eligible. Another thing that’s going on is a lot of innovation in the means of enabling access to information. So many states have put in place personal apps through which people can track their own eligibility. There’s interest and some uptake of the so-called pizza-tracker function — so you can kind of see where you’re situated in that pipeline — and also a lot of use of automation to help call people back if they’re trying to get to state call centers. So really, all of those types of strategies … we’re seeing a huge amount of effort across the country.

Rovner: How’s the cooperation going with the Department of Health and Human Services? I know that … they seem to be not happy with some states. Are they being helpful, in general?

McEvoy: They’re being extraordinarily helpful. I would say that we often talk about Medicaid representing a federal-state equity partnership, and we’ve seen that manifest from the beginning of the first notice of the certainty around the start of the unwinding. CMCS has consistently offered guidance to states. They work with states using a mitigation approach as opposed to moving rapidly to compliance. We feel mitigation is the best way of essentially working out the strategies that are going to best protect continuing eligibility for people at the state level. And we really appreciate CMS’ efforts on that. We understand they do have to ensure accountability across the country, and we’re mutually committed to that.

Rovner: You better explain mitigation strategies.

McEvoy: Yeah, so this is a year where we are calling the question on eligibility standards that help ensure that the pathway to Medicaid coverage is a smooth one, and also that there is continuity of coverage. So, for any state that wasn’t yet meeting all those standards, CMCS essentially entered into an agreement with the state or territory to say, here is how you will get there. And that could have involved some means of improving the automatic renewals for Medicaid. It could have meant relying on an integrated eligibility processes. There are a lot of different tools and strategies that were put in place, but essentially that is a path to every state and territory coming into full compliance.

Rovner: Is there anything unexpected that’s happening? I know so much of this was predicted, and it was predicted that the states that went first that, you know, were really in a hurry to get extra people off of their rolls seem to be doing just that: getting extra people off of their rolls. Are you surprised at the differences among states?

McEvoy: I think that there have definitely been differences among states in terms of the tools they have used from a system standpoint, but I don’t see any differences in terms of retention of eligible people. That remains a shared goal across the entire country. And again, this is a watershed point where we have the opportunity to bring everyone to the same standards, ongoing, so that we help to prevent some of the heartache of the eligibility process for folks ongoing.

Rovner: Anything else I didn’t ask?

McEvoy: Well, I think that piece around the reconsideration period is particularly important. We are struck by there being probably less literacy around that option, and that’s something we want to continue to promote. The other piece I’d wind up by saying is that the Medicaid program is always available for people who are eligible. So in the worst-case scenario in which an otherwise eligible person loses coverage, they can always come back and be covered. This is in contrast to private insurance that may have an annual open enrollment period. Medicaid, as you know, is available on a rolling basis, and we want to keep reinforcing that theme so that no one goes with a gap in coverage.

Rovner: Kate McEvoy, thank you very much. And I hope we can call you back in a couple of months.

McEvoy: I would be very happy to hear from you.

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. I did mine already. Emmarie, why don’t you go next?

Huetteman: My story this week comes from KFF Health News, my colleague Darius Tahir. He has a story called “The NIH Ices a Research Project. Is It Self-Censorship?” Now, the story talks about the fact that the former head of NIH Francis Collins, was, as he was leaving, announcing an effort to study health communications. And we’re talking about not just doctor-to-patient communications, but actually also how mass communications impact American health. But as Darius found out, the acting director quietly ended the program as NIH was preparing to open its grant applications. And officials who spoke with us said that they think political pressure over misinformation is to blame. Now, we don’t have to look too far for examples of conservative pressure over misinformation and information these days. In particular, there’s a notable one from just last month out of a Louisiana court, the federal court decision that blocked government officials from communicating with social media companies. You really don’t have to look too far to see that there’s a chilling effect on information. And we’re talking about the NIH was going to study or rather fund studies into communication and information. Not misinformation, information: how people get information about their health. So it’s a pretty interesting example and a really great story worth your read.

Rovner: And I’ve done nothing but preach about public health communication for three years now.

Kenen: It’s a very good story.

Rovner: Yeah, it was a really good story. Rachel, you’re next.

Roubein: All right. This story is called “From Windows to Wall Art, Hospitals Use Virtual Reality to Design More Inclusive Rooms for Kids,” by Stat News, by Mohana Ravindranath. And I thought this story was really interesting because she kind of dived into what Mohana called “a budding movement to make architecture more inclusive” for the people and patients who are spending a lot, a lot of time in hospital walls. And what some researchers are doing is using virtual reality to essentially gauge how comfortable children who are patients are in hospital rooms. And she talked to researchers at Berkeley who were using these, like, virtual reality headsets to kind of study and explore mocked-up hospital rooms. And, I didn’t know a ton about this field. I mean, apparently it’s not new, but it’s this kind of growing sort of movement to make patients more comfortable in the space that they’re inhabiting for perhaps long periods of time.

Rovner: I went to a conference on architecture, hospital architecture, making it more patient-centered, 10 years ago. But my favorite thing that I still remember from that is they talked about putting art on the ceiling because people are either in bed or they’re in gurneys. They’re looking up at the ceiling a lot. And ceilings are scary in hospitals. So that was one of the things that I took away from that. OK, Joanne, now it’s your turn.

Kenen: OK. This is from Fox News. And yes, you did hear that right. It’s by Melissa Rudy, and the headline is “Male Health Care Leaders Complete ‘Simulated Breastfeeding Challenge’ at Texas Hospital: ‘Huge Eye-Opener’.” So at Covenant Health, they had a bunch of high-level guys in suits pretend they were nursing and/or pumping mothers, and they had to nurse every three hours for 20 minutes at a time. And they found it was quite difficult and quite cumbersome and they didn’t have enough privacy. And as one of them said, “There was no way to multitask.” But trust me, if you have two kids, you have to figure that out, too. So it was a really good story.

Rovner: Some of these things that we feel like should be required everywhere, but it was a great read; it was a really good story. OK, that is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us too. Special thanks this week to Zach Dyer, sitting in for the indefatigable Francis Ying. And as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me or X me or whatever; I’m @jrovner. And also on Bluesky and Threads. Rachel?

Roubein: @rachel_roubein — that’s on Twitter.

Rovner: Joanne.

Kenen: In most places I’m @JoanneKenen. On Threads, I’m @joannekenen1.

Rovner: Emmarie.

Huetteman: And I am @emmarieDC.

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

Credits

Zach Dyer
Senior 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.

2023 will likely be remembered as the summer Arizona sizzled, Vermont got swamped, and nearly the entire Eastern Seaboard, along with huge swaths of the Midwest, choked on wildfire smoke from Canada. Still, none of that has been enough to prompt policymakers in Washington to act on climate issues.

Meanwhile, at a public court hearing, a group of women in Texas took the stand to share wrenching stories about their inability to get care for pregnancy complications, even though they should have been exempt from restrictions under the state’s strict abortion ban.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefalil

Read Shefali's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Tensions over abortion access between the medical and legal communities are coming to the fore in the courts, as doctors beg for clarification about bans on the procedure — and conservative state officials argue that the law is clear enough. The risk of being hauled into court and forced to defend even medically justified care could be enough to discourage a doctor from providing abortion care.
• Conservative states are targeting a Biden administration effort to update federal privacy protections, which would make it more difficult for law enforcement to obtain information about individuals who travel outside a state where abortion is restricted for the procedure. Patient privacy is also under scrutiny in Nebraska, where a case involving a terminated pregnancy is further illuminating how willing tech companies like Meta are to share user data with authorities.
• And religious freedom laws are being cited in arguments challenging abortion bans, with plaintiffs alleging the restrictions infringe on their religious rights. The argument appears to have legs, as early challenges are being permitted to move forward in the courts.
• On Capitol Hill, key Senate Democrats are holding up the confirmation process of President Joe Biden’s nominee as director of the National Institutes of Health to press for stronger drug pricing reforms and an end to the revolving-door practice of government officials going to work for private industry.
• And shortages of key cancer drugs are intensifying concerns about drug supplies and drawing attention in Congress. But Republicans are skeptical about increasing the FDA’s authority — and supply-chain issues just aren’t that politically compelling.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Meena Seshamani, director of the Center for Medicare at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services at the Department of Health and Human Services.

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

Julie Rovner: Los Angeles Times’ “Opinion: Crushing Medical Debt Is Turning Americans Against Their Doctors,” by KFF Health News’ Noam N. Levey.

Rachel Cohrs: The New York Times’ “They Lost Their Legs. Doctors and Health Care Giants Profited,” by Katie Thomas, Jessica Silver-Greenberg, and Robert Gebeloff.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Atlantic’s “What Happened When Oregon Decriminalized Hard Drugs,” by Jim Hinch.

Shefali Luthra: KFF Health News’ “Medical Exiles: Families Flee States Amid Crackdown on Transgender Care,” by Bram Sable-Smith, Daniel Chang, Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez, and Sandy West.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• Stat’s “From Rapid Cooling Body Bags to ‘Prescriptions’ for AC, Doctors Prepare for a Future of Extreme Heat,” by Karen Pennar.
• Politico’s “The Sleeper Legal Strategy That Could Topple Abortion Bans,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Let’s Talk About the Weather

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Let’s Talk About the WeatherEpisode Number: 306Published: July 20, 2023

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

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Rachel Cohrs, of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Shefali Luthra: Hello.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with Meena Seshamani, director of the Center for Medicare at the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services at the Department of Health and Human Services. She has an update on drug price negotiations, Medicare Advantage payments, and more. But first, this week’s news. So let’s talk about the weather. Seriously, this summer of intense heat domes in the South and Southwest, flash floods in the East, and toxic air from Canadian wildfires almost everywhere below the border has advertised the dangers of climate change in a way scientists and journalists and policymakers could only dream about. The big question, though, is whether it will make any difference to the people who can actually do something about it. I hasten to point out here that in D.C., it’s normal — hot and humid for July, but nothing particularly out of the ordinary, especially compared to a lot of the rest of the country. Is anybody seeing anybody on the Hill who seems at the least alarmed by what’s going on?

Ollstein: Not other than those who normally speak out about these issues. You’re not seeing minds changed by this, even as the reports coming out, especially of the Southwest, are just devastating — I mean, especially for unhoused people, just dying. I was really interested in the story from Stat about doctors moving to start prescribing things to combat heat, like prescribing air conditioners, prescribing cooling packs and other things, really looking at heat as a medical issue and not just a feature of our lives that we have to deal with.

Rovner: Well, emergency rooms are full of patients. You can now burn yourself walking on the sidewalk in Arizona. You know, last summer was not a great summer for a lot of people, particularly in California and in western Canada. But this year, it’s like everywhere across the country, everybody’s having something that’s sort of, oh, a hundred-year something or a thousand-year something. And yet we just sort of continue on blithely.

Ollstein: And just quickly, what really hits me is how much of a vicious cycle it can create, because the more people use air conditioners, those give off heat and make the bigger situation worse. So making it better for yourself makes it worse for others. Same with driving. You know, the worse the weather is, the more people have to drive rather than bike or walk or take public transit. And so it gets into this vicious cycle that can make it worse for everyone and create these so-called heat islands in these cities.

Rovner: All right. Well, let us move on to a more familiar topic: abortion and reproductive health. In case you’re wondering why it’s hard to keep track of where abortion is legal, where it’s banned, and where it’s restricted, let’s talk about Iowa. When we last checked in, last week, state lawmakers had just passed a near-total ban after the state Supreme Court deadlocked over a previous ban and the Republican governor, Kim Reynolds, was poised to sign it. Then what happened?

Luthra: The governor signed the ban right as the hearing for the ban concluded in which Planned Parenthood and another abortion clinic in the state sued, arguing, right, that this is the exact same as the law that was just struck down and therefore should be struck down again. And this judge said that he wouldn’t rush to his ruling. He wanted to, you know, give it the time that it deserved so he wouldn’t be saying anything on Friday, which meant as soon as the law was signed, it took effect. It was in effect for maybe a little over 72 hours, essentially through the weekend. And then on Monday, the judge came and issued a ruling blocking the law. And even that is temporary, right? It only lasts as long as this case is proceeding. And one of the reasons Republicans came back and passed this ban is they are hopeful that something has changed and that this time around the state Supreme Court will let the six-week ban in Iowa stand, which really just would have quite significant implications for the Midwest, where it’s been kind of slower to restrict abortion than the South has been because of the role the courts have played in Ohio, in Iowa, blocking abortion bans, and we could very soon see restrictions in Iowa, in Indiana, potentially in Ohio, depending on how the election later this year goes. And it will look like a very different picture than it did even six months ago.

Rovner: And for the moment, abortion is legal in Iowa, right?

Luthra: Correct.

Rovner: Up to 20 weeks?

Luthra: Up to 20, 22, depending on how you count.

Rovner: But as you say, that could change any day. And it has changed from day to day as we’ve gone on. Well, if that’s not confusing enough, there are a couple of lawsuits that went to court in Texas and Missouri, and neither of them is actually challenging an abortion ban. In Texas, women who were pregnant and unable to get timely care for complications are suing to clarify the state’s abortion ban so patients don’t have to literally wait until they are dying to be treated. And in Missouri, there’s a fight between two state officials over how to describe what a proposed state ballot measure would do, honestly. So what’s the status of those two suits? Let’s start with Texas. That was quite a hearing yesterday.

Luthra: It is really devastating to watch. And the hearing continues today, Thursday. And we are hearing from these women who wanted to have their pregnancies, developed complications where they knew that the fetus would not be viable, could not get care in the state. One of them who came to the State of the Union earlier this year, she had to wait until she was septic before she could get care. Another woman traveled out of state. Another one had to give birth to a baby that died four hours after being born, and she knew that this baby wouldn’t live. And it’s really striking to watch just how obviously difficult it is for these women to relive this thing that happened to them, clearly one of the worst things in their lives, maybe the worst thing. And the state’s arguments are very interesting, too, because they appear to be trying to suggest that it is actually not that the law is unclear, but that doctors are just not doing their jobs and they should do, you know, the hard work of medicine by understanding what exceptions mean and interpreting laws that are always supposed to be a little ambiguous.

Ollstein: So when states were debating abortion bans and really Republicans were tying themselves in knots over this question of exemptions — How should the exemptions be worded? Should there be any exemptions at all? Who should they apply to? — a lot of folks on the left were yelling at the time that that’s the wrong conversation, that exemptions are unworkable; even if you say on paper that people can get an abortion in a medical emergency, it won’t work in practice. And this is really fodder for that argument. This is that argument playing out in real life, where there is a medical exemption on the books, and yet all of these women were not able to get the care they needed, and some have suffered permanent or somewhat permanent repercussions to their health and fertility going forward. As more states debate their own laws, and some states with bans have even tried to go back and clarify the exemptions and change them, I wonder how much this will impact those debates.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, if you just say that doctors are being, you know, cowards basically by not providing this care, think of it from the doctor’s point of view, and now we see why hospital lawyers are getting involved. Even if there’s a legitimate medical reason, they could get dragged into court and have to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees just to prove that their medical judgment was correct. You can kind of see why doctors are a little bit reluctant to do that.

Ollstein: And just to stress, these laws were not written by doctors. These laws were written by politicians, and they include language that medical groups have pointed out doesn’t translate to the actual practice of medicine. Some of these bans’ exceptions’ language use terms like irreversible, and they’re like, “That’s not something we say in medicine. That doesn’t fit with our training. We don’t think in terms of that.” Also, terms like life-threatening: It’s like, OK, well, is it imminently life-threatening? And even then, what does that mean? How close does someone need to be to losing their life in order to act?

Rovner: And pregnancy itself is life-threatening.

Ollstein: Right. Or something could be life-threatening in a longer-term way, you know, down the road. Other conditions like diabetes or cancer could be life-threatening even if it won’t kill you today or tomorrow. So this is a real battle where medicine meets law.

Rovner: Well, in Missouri, it’s obviously not nearly as dramatic, but it’s also — you can see how this is playing out in a lot of these states. This is basically a fight between the state attorney general and the state auditor over how much an abortion ban might end up costing the state. They’re really sort of fighting this as hard as they can. It’s basically to make it either more or less attractive to voters, right?

Ollstein: It’s similar to some of the gambits we saw in Michigan to keep the measure off the ballot or put it on the ballot in a way that some would say would be misleading to voters. So I think you’re seeing this more and more in these states after so many states, including pretty conservative states, voted in favor of abortion rights last year. You know, the right is afraid of that continuing to happen, and so they’re looking at all of these technical ways — through the courts, through the legislatures, whatever means they can — to influence the process. And Democrats cry that this is antidemocratic, not giving people a say. Republicans claim that they’re preventing big-money outside groups from influencing the process. And I think this is going to be a huge battle. Missouri and Ohio are up next in terms of voting. And after that, you have Florida and Nevada and a bunch of other states in the queue. And so this is going to continue to be something we’re discussing for a while.

Luthra: And to flag the case in Ohio, what’s happening there, right, is the state is having voters vote onto whether to make it harder to pass constitutional amendments. There’s an election in August that would raise the threshold to two-thirds. And what we know from all of the evidence why they don’t typically have August referenda in Ohio is because the turnout is very, very low, and they are expecting that to be very low. And they’ve made it explicit that the reason they want to make it harder to pass constitutional amendments is, in fact, the concern around Ohio’s proposed abortion protection.

Rovner: Of course, that’s what they said about Kansas last year, that people wouldn’t vote because it was in the summer, so — but this is a little bit more obtuse. This is whether or not you’re going to change the standard for passing constitutional change that would enshrine abortion. So, yeah, clearly —

Luthra: It’s hard to get people excited about votes on voting.

Rovner: Yeah, exactly. An underlying theme for most of this year has been efforts by states that restrict or ban abortion to try to prevent or at least keep tabs on patients who leave the state to obtain a procedure where it is legal. Attorneys general in a dozen and a half states are now protesting a Biden administration effort to protect such information under HIPAA, the medical records privacy provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Alice, you’ve written about this. What would the HIPAA update do, and why do the red states oppose it?

Ollstein: The HIPAA update, which was proposed in April, and comment closed in June, and so we’re basically waiting for a final rule — at some point, you know, it can take a while — but it would make it harder for either law enforcement or state officials to obtain medical information about someone seeking an abortion, either out of state or in state under one of these exemptions. This would sort of beef up those protections and require a subpoena or some form of court order in order to get that data. And you have sort of an interesting pattern playing out, which you’ve seen just throughout the Biden administration, where the Biden administration hems and haws and takes an action related to abortion rights and the left says it’s not good enough and the right says it’s wild overreach and unconstitutional and they’re going to sue. And so that’s what I was documenting in my story.

Rovner: Is it 18 red states saying —

Ollstein: Nineteen, yes, yeah.

Rovner: Nineteen red states saying that this is going too far.

Ollstein: They say they want to be able to obtain that data to see if people are breaking the law.

Rovner: Well, Shefali, you wrote this week about sort of a related topic, whether states can use text or social media messages as evidence of criminal activity. That sounds kind of chilling.

Luthra: Yeah, and this is, I think, a really interesting question. We saw it in this case in Nebraska, where a sentencing for one of the defendants is happening today in fact. And I want to be careful in how I talk about this because it concerns a pregnancy that was terminated in April of 2022, before Roe was even overturned. But it sort of offered this test case, this preview for: If you do have law enforcement going after people who have broken a state’s abortion laws, how might they go about doing that? What statutes do they use to prosecute? And what information do they have access to? And the answer is potentially quite a lot. Organizations like Meta and Google are quite cooperative when it comes to government requests for user data. They are quite willing to give over history of message exchanges, history of your searches, or of, you know, where you were tracked on Google Maps. And the bigger question there is how likely are we to see individual prosecutors, individual states, going after patients and their families, their friends for breaking abortion laws? Right now, there’s been some hesitation to do that because the politics are so terrible. But if they do go in that direction, people’s internet user data is, in most states, unprotected. There is no federal law protecting, you know, your Facebook messages. And it could be quite a useful piece of information for people trying to build a case, which should raise concern for anyone trying to access care.

Rovner: Yeah, this is exactly why women were taking their period-tracking apps off of their phones, to worry about the protection of quite personal information. Well, finally this week on the abortion front, we have talked so, so much about how conservative Christians complain that various abortion and even birth control laws violate their religious beliefs. Well, now representatives of several other religions, including Judaism and even some of the more liberal branches of Christianity, say that abortion bans violate their right to practice their religion. This is going on in a bunch of different states. I think the first one we talked about was Florida, I think a year ago. Are any of these lawsuits going anywhere? Do we expect this to end up before the Supreme Court at some point?

Ollstein: So most of them are in state court, not federal. I mean, it’s always possible it could go to the Supreme Court. A couple of them are in federal court and a couple of them have already reached the appeals court level. But the experts I talked to for my story on this said this is mainly going to have an impact in state courts and how they interpret state constitutions. A lot of states have stronger language around religious protections than the federal Constitution, including some laws that pretty conservative state leaders passed in the last few years, and I doubt they expected that same language would be cited to defend abortion rights. But here we are. And yeah, a Missouri court recently ruled that the lawsuit can go forward, the religious challenge to the state’s abortion ban. It’s a coalition of a bunch of different faith leaders bringing that challenge. And in Indiana, they won a preliminary ruling on that case. And there are others pending in Kentucky, Florida, a bunch of other states. And so, yeah, I think this definitely has legs.

Rovner: Yeah, we’re all learning an awful lot about court procedure in lots of different states. Let us move to Capitol Hill, where Congress is in its annual July race to the August recess. Seriously, this is actually a month in which Congress typically does get a lot done. Maybe not so much this year. One perhaps unexpected holdup in the U.S. Senate is where the confirmation of Monica Bertagnolli, President Biden’s nominee to head the National Institutes of Health, is being held up not by a Republican but by two Democrats: health committee chair Bernie Sanders, another member of the committee, Elizabeth Warren. Rachel, what is going on with this?

Cohrs: Sen. Bernie Sanders has long wanted the Biden administration to be more aggressive on drug pricing. And there is one issue in particular that Sen. Sanders has wanted the NIH specifically to use to challenge drug companies’ patents or at least put some pricing protections in there for drugs that are developed using publicly funded research. And the laws that the NIH potentially could use to challenge these companies for high-priced medications have never been used in this way. And Sen. Sanders is using his bully pulpit and the main leverage he has, which is over nominations, to get the White House’s attention. And I think the White House’s position here is that they have done more than any administration in the past 20 years to lower drug prices.

Rovner: Which is true.

Cohrs: It is true. And — but Sen. Sanders still is not satisfied with that and wants to see commitments from the White House and from NIH to do more.

Rovner: And Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Cohrs: Sen. Elizabeth Warren, yes, who my colleague Sarah Owermohle first reported had some concerns over the revolving door at NIH and wanted a commitment that the nominee wouldn’t go to lobby or work for a large pharmaceutical company for four years after leaving the position, and I don’t know that she’s agreed to that yet. So I don’t see where this resolves. It’s tough, because we’re looking so close to an election, and I think there are big questions about what breaks this logjam. But it certainly has slowed down what looked like a very smooth and noncontroversial nomination process.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, obviously, you know, we’ve seen many, many times over the years nominations held up for other reasons — I mean, basically using them as leverage to get some policy aim. It’s more rare that you see it on the president’s own party but obviously, you know, not completely unprecedented. Certainly in this case we have a lot of things to be worked out there. Well, Sen. Sanders also seems to be threatening the reauthorization of one of his very pet programs, the bipartisanly popular community health centers. His staff this week put out a draft bill and announced a markup before sharing it with Republicans on the committee. Now Ranking Member Bill Cassidy, who also supports the community health centers program — almost everybody in Congress supports the community health centers program — Cassidy complains there’s no budget score, that the bill includes programs from outside the committee’s jurisdiction, and other details that can be very important. Is Sanders trying to make things partisan on purpose, or is this just sloppy staff work?

Cohrs: Honestly, I can’t answer that question for you, but I don’t think that it’s going to result in a productive outcome for the community health centers. And I think we have in recent years seen significant cooperation between the chair and ranking member, but with Lamar Alexander, with Richard Burr, with Patty Murray, you know, we have seen a lot civility on this committee in the recent past, and that appears to have ended. And I think Sen. Cassidy’s response that he hadn’t seen the legislation publicly was, I think, telling. We don’t usually see that kind of public fighting from a committee chair.

Rovner: He put out a press release.

Cohrs: Right, put out a press release. Yeah. This is not what we usually see in these committees. And it is true that Sen. Sanders’ bill is so much more money than I think is usually given to community health centers in this reauthorization process. I think it’s true that the bill that he dropped touches issues that would anger almost every other stakeholder in the health care system. And I don’t think Sen. Cassidy quite envisioned that. And he introduced his own bill that would have introduced —

Rovner: Cassidy introduced his own bill.

Cohrs: Yes, Sen. Cassidy introduced his own bill last week that would have continued on with what the House Energy and Commerce Committee had passed unanimously earlier this summer to give community health centers a more modest boost in funding for two years.

Rovner: And obviously, there’s some urgency to this because the authorization runs out at the end of September and now we’re in July and they’re going to go away for August. So this is obviously something else that we’re going to need to keep a fairly close eye on. Well, meanwhile, elsewhere, as in at the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees Medicare and Medicaid, we’re starting to see legislation to regulate PBMs — pharmacy benefit managers — or are we? Rachel, we’ve come at this several times this year. How close are we getting?

Cohrs: We’re getting closer. And I think that two key committees are really feeling the heat to get their proposals out there before the end of the year. The first, like you mentioned, was the Senate Finance Committee, which is planning a markup next week, right before senators leave for August recess. They’ve asked for feedback from CBO [the Congressional Budget Office] around the end of August recess so that they’ll be ready to go. But I think it’s no secret that their delay in marking anything up or introducing anything has slowed down this process. And in the House, I know the Ways and Means Committee is trying to put together their own proposal and find time for a markup, whereas the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which also has jurisdiction over many of these issues, is frustrated, because they got their bill introduced, they had all the full regular order of subcommittee and then full committee hearings and then markups, got this bill unanimously out of their committee, and now everyone’s kind of waiting around on these two committees with jurisdiction over the Medicare program to see what they’re going to put together before any larger package can be compiled.

Rovner: Well, you know things are heating up when you start seeing PBM ads all over cable news. So even if you don’t understand what the issue is, you know that it’s definitely in play on Capitol Hill. Well, while we’re on the subject of drug prices, we have another lawsuit trying to block Medicare’s drug price negotiation, this one filed by Johnson & Johnson. Why so many? Wouldn’t these drug companies have more clout if they got together on one big suit, or is there some strategy here to spread it out and hope somebody finds a sympathetic judge?

Ollstein: Yes, I think the latter is exactly what they’re doing, because if they were to all kind of band together, then it would be putting all their eggs in one basket. And this way we see most of the companies have filed in different jurisdictions. I think Johnson & Johnson did file in the same court as Bristol Myers Squibb did, so I think it’s not a perfect trend. But generally what we are seeing is that the trade groups like the [U.S.] Chamber of Commerce and PhRMA [the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America] kind of have their own arguments that they’re making in different venues. The drug manufacturers themselves have their own arguments that they’re making in their own venues, and they’re spreading out across the country in some typically more liberal courts and circuits and some more conservative. But I think that it’s important to note that the Chamber of Commerce so far is the only one that’s asked for a preliminary injunction, in Ohio. That is kind of the motion that, if it’s approved, could potentially put a stop to this program even beginning to go into effect. So they’ve asked for that by Oct. 1.

Rovner: And remember, I guess we’re supposed to see the first 10 drugs from negotiation in September, right?

Cohrs: By Sept. 1, yes.

Rovner: By Sept. 1.

Cohrs: Pretty imminently here.

Rovner: Also happening soon. Well, before we stop with the news this week, I do want to talk briefly about drug shortages. This has come up from time to time, both before and during the pandemic, obviously, when we had supply chain issues. But it seems like something new is happening. Some of these shortages seem to be coming because generic makers of some drugs just don’t find them lucrative enough to continue to make them. Now we’re looking at some major shortages of key cancer drugs, literally causing doctors to have to choose who lives and who dies. Are there any proposals on Capitol Hill for addressing this? It’s kind of flying below the radar, but it’s a pretty big deal.

Cohrs: I think we’ve seen Congressman Frank Pallone make this his pet issue in the reauthorization of PAHPA [Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act], which is the pandemic preparedness bill, which also expires on Sept. 30. So, you know, they have a full plate.

Rovner: Which we will talk about next week because they’re marking it up today.

Cohrs: Exactly. Yes. So but what we have seen is that Democrats in the House Energy and Commerce Committee have made this a top priority to at least have something on drug shortages in PAHPA. And I think my colleague John Wilkerson watched a hearing this week and noted that the chair of the committee, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, seemed more open to adding something than she had been in the past. But again, I think it’s kind of uncertain what we’ll see. And Sen. Bernie Sanders did add a couple of drug shortage policies to his version of PAHPA in the HELP Committee [Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions]. So I think we are seeing some movement on at least some policies to address it. But the problem is that the supply chain is not sexy and Republicans are not crazy about the idea of giving the FDA more authority. I think there is just so much skepticism of these public health agencies. It’s a hard systemic issue to crack. So I think we may see something, but it’s unclear whether any of this would provide any immediate relief.

Rovner: Everybody agrees that there’s a problem and nobody agrees on how to solve it. Welcome to Capitol Hill. OK, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with Medicare chief Meena Seshamani, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credit. I am pleased to welcome to the podcast Meena Seshamani, deputy administrator and director of the Center for Medicare at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services at the Department of Health and Human Services. That must be a very long business card.

Meena Seshamani: [laughs]

Rovner: Translated, that means she’s basically in charge of the Medicare program for the federal government. She comes to this job with more than the requisite experience. She is a physician, a head and neck surgeon in fact, a PhD health economist, a former hospital executive, and a former top administrator there at HHS. Meena, welcome to “What the Health?” We are so happy to have you.

Seshamani: Thank you so much for having me, Julie.

Rovner: So, our podcast listeners will know, because we talk about it so much, that the biggest Medicare story of 2023 is the launch of a program to negotiate prescription drug prices and hopefully bring down the price of some of those drugs. Can you give us a quick update on how that’s going and when patients can expect to start to see results?

Seshamani: Absolutely. The new prescription drug law, the Inflation Reduction Act, really has made historic changes to the Medicare program. And to your point, people are seeing those results right now. There is now a $35 cap on what someone will pay out-of-pocket for a month’s supply of covered insulin at the pharmacy, which is huge. I’ve met with people all over the country. Sometimes people are spending up to $400 for a month’s supply of this lifesaving medication. Also, vaccines at no cost out-of-pocket. And a lot of this leads to what you’re mentioning with the drug negotiation program, a historic opportunity for Medicare to negotiate drugs. In January, we put out a timeline of the various pieces that we’re putting in place to stand up this negotiation program. Along that timeline, we have released guidance that describes the process that we will undergo to negotiate, what we’ll think about as we’re engaging in negotiation. And the first 10 drugs for negotiation that are selected will be announced on Sept. 1. And that will then lead into the negotiation process.

Rovner: And as we’ve mentioned — I think it was on last week’s podcast — there’s a lot of lawsuits that are trying to stop this. Are you confident that you’re going to be able to overcome this and keep this train on the tracks?

Seshamani: Well, we don’t generally comment on the lawsuits. I will say that we are implementing this law in the most thoughtful manner possible. From the day that the law was enacted, we have been meeting with drug manufacturers, health plans, patient groups, health care providers, you know, experts in the field, to really understand the complexity of the drug space and what we can do with this opportunity to really improve things, improve access and affordability to have innovative therapies for the cures that people need.

Rovner: Well, while we are on that subject, we — not just Medicare, but society at large — is facing down a gigantic conundrum. The good news is that we’re finally starting to see drugs that can treat or possibly cure such devastating ailments as Alzheimer’s disease and obesity. But those drugs are currently so expensive, and the population that could benefit from them is so large, they could basically bankrupt the entire health care system. How is Medicare approaching that? Obviously, in the Alzheimer’s space, that could be a very big deal.

Seshamani: Well, Julie, we are committed to helping ensure that people have timely access to innovative treatments that can lead to improved care and better outcomes. And in doing this, we take into account what the Medicare law enables coverage for and what the evidence shows. So with Alzheimer’s, CMS underwent a national coverage determination. And consistent with that, Medicare is covering the drug when a physician and clinical team participates in the collection of evidence about how these drugs work in the real world, also known as a registry. And this is very important because it will enable us to gather more information on patient outcomes as we continue to see innovations in this space. And you mentioned obesity. In the Medicare law, there is a carve-out for drugs for weight loss.

Rovner: A carve-out meaning you can’t cover them.

Seshamani: Correct. It says that the Medicare Part D prescription drug program will not cover drugs for weight loss. So we are looking at the increasing evidence. And for example, where there is a drug that is used for diabetes, for example, you know, then it can certainly be covered. And this is an area that we are continuing to partner with our colleagues in the FDA on and that we’d like to partner with the broader community to continue to build the evidence base around benefits for the Medicare population as we continue to evaluate where we want to make sure that people have access.

Rovner: But are you thinking sort of generally about what to do about these drugs that cost sometimes tens of thousands of dollars a year, hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, that half the population could benefit from? I mean, that cannot happen, right, financially?

Seshamani: Well, Julie, this is where the new provisions in the new drug law really come into play. Thinking from access for people for the high-cost drugs, I think we all know what a financial strain the high cost of drugs have created for our nation’s seniors, where now, in 2025, there will be a $2,000 out-of-pocket cap, that people will not have to pay out-of-pocket more than $2,000, which enables them to access drugs. And on the other side, as we talked about with drug negotiation, where for drugs that have been in the market for seven years or 11 years, if they are high-cost drugs, they could potentially be selected for negotiation where we can then, you know, as we laid out in the guidance that we put out, look at what is the benefit that this drug provides to a population? What are the therapeutic alternatives? And then also consider things like what’s the cost of producing that drug and distributing it? How much federal support was given for the research and development of that drug? And how much is the total R & D costs? So I think that there are several tools that we’ve been given in the Inflation Reduction Act that demonstrate how we are continuing to think about how we can ensure that Medicare is delivering for people now and in the future.

Rovner: Well, speaking of things that are popular but also expensive, let’s talk briefly about Medicare Advantage. More and more beneficiaries are opting for private plans over traditional, fee-for-service Medicare. But the health plans have figured out lots of ways to game the system to make large profits basically at taxpayers’ expense. Is there a long-term plan for Medicare Advantage or are we just going to continue to play whack-a-mole, trying to plug the loopholes that the plans keep finding?

Seshamani: You know, as now we have 50% of the population in Medicare Advantage, Medicare Advantage plays a critical role in advancing our vision for the Medicare program around advancing health equity, expanding access to care, driving innovation, and enabling us to be good stewards of the Medicare dollar. And that vision that we have is reflected in all of the policies that we have put forward to date. And I might add that those policies really have been informed by engagement with everyone who’s interested in Medicare Advantage. We did a request for comment and got more than 4,000 suggestions from people. This has now come out in recent policies like cracking down on misleading marketing practices so that people can get the plan that best suits their needs; ensuring clear rules of the road for prior authorization and utilization management so we can make sure that people are accessing the medically necessary care that they need; things like improving network adequacy, particularly in behavioral health, so people can access the health care providers in the networks of the plans; and then the work that we’re doing around payment, to make sure that we’re paying accurately, updating the years that we use for data, looking at the coding patterns of Medicare Advantage. And again, this is all work that is important to make sure that the program is really serving the people in the Medicare program.

Rovner: So, as you know, we’ve done big investigative projects here at KFF Health News about both medical debt and nonprofit hospitals not living up to their responsibilities to the community. As the largest single payer of hospitals, what is Medicare doing to try and address requirements for charity care, for example?

Seshamani: Well, the. IRS oversees the requirements for community benefit, which is how hospitals maintain or get a nonprofit status. We have certainly worked with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Department of Treasury on, for example, issuing a request for information, seeking public comment on, you know, medical credit cards. But even beyond that, I think this is an example of where we need to bring more payment accuracy and transparency in the health care system. So, for example, we have recently just proposed strengthening hospital price transparency so that people can know what is the cost of services, standard charges that hospitals provide. We also are adding quality measures to hospitals, particularly around issues around health equity, making sure that hospitals are screening patients for social needs. And we’re also tying increasingly our payment programs to making sure that those underserved populations are receiving excellent care, so again, really trying to drive transparency, quality, and access through all of the work that we’re doing with hospitals.

Rovner: But can you leverage Medicare’s power? Obviously, you know, that was what created EMTALA [the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act], was leveraging Medicare’s power. Can you leverage it here to try and push some of these hospitals to do things they seem reluctant to do?

Seshamani: Where we have our levers in the Medicare program, we absolutely are working with hospitals around issues of equity, so as I mentioned, you know, really embedding equity not only in our quality requirements but also in hospital operations — for example, that as part of their operations they need to be looking at health equity. You know, where we are looking at how they are providing care and addressing issues of patient safety. So, we continue to look into all of these angles, and where we can support good practices. For example, we just proposed in our inpatient prospective payment system rule that when hospitals are taking care of homeless patients, that can be considered in their payment, because we have found through our analyses that additional resources are being used to make sure that those patients are supported for all of their needs, and we’re encouraging hospitals to code for these social needs so that we can continue to assess with them where resources and supports are needed to provide the kind of care that we all want for our populations.

Rovner: Last question, and I know that this is big, so it’s almost unfair. One of the reasons we know that it’s getting so expensive to manage medical costs is the increasing involvement of private equity in health care. What’s the Biden administration doing to address this growing profit motive?

Seshamani: Yeah, Julie, I’ll come back to, you know, what I alluded to before around transparency. We are really committed to transparency in health care, and we are continuing to focus on gathering data that sheds light on what is happening in the health care market so that we can be good stewards of the taxpayer dollar. So I mentioned our work in hospital price transparency, where we have streamlined the enforcement process; we have proposed to require standard ways that hospitals are reporting their charges and standard locations where they have to put a footer on the hospital’s homepage so that people can find that data easily. In Medicare Advantage, we are requiring more reporting for the medical loss ratio for plans to report spending on supplemental benefits like dental, vision, etc. And we really want to hone in on where else we can gather more data to be able to enable all of us to see what is happening in this dynamic health care market; what’s working? What isn’t? And so we’re very interested in getting ideas.from everyone of where more data can be helpful to enable us to then enact policies that can make sure that the health care industries and the market are really serving people in the most effective way possible.

Rovner: Well, you’ve got a very big job, so I will let you get back to it. Thank you so much, Meena Seshamani.

Seshamani: Thank you for having me.

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

Luthra: Sure. So mine is from KFF Health News by a dream team, Bram Sable-Smith, Daniel Chang, Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez, and Sandy West. The headline is “Medical Exiles: Families Flee States Amid Crackdown on Transgender Care.” And I mean, it’s exactly what it sounds like. It’s this really person-grounded, quite deeply reported story about how restrictions on gender-affirming health care, especially for young people, are forcing families to leave their homes. And this is a really tough thing for people to do, you know, leave somewhere where you’ve lived for 10 years or longer and go somewhere where you don’t have ties. Moving is quite expensive. And I think this is a really important look at something that we anecdotally know is happening, haven’t seen enough really great deep dives on, and is something that potentially will happen more and more as people are forced to leave their homes if they can afford to do so because they don’t feel safe there anymore.

Rovner: Yeah, and this is the issue of doing these social issues state by state by state, just what’s happening now. Alice.

Ollstein: So I chose a piece from The Atlantic called “What Happened When Oregon Decriminalized Hard Drugs,” by Jim Hinch. It was really fascinating. On the one side, they say this is evidence that the policy has failed, that decriminalizing possession of small amounts of cocaine, heroin, all hard drugs, has been a failure because overdoses have actually gone up since then. But other experts quoted in this article say that, look, we tried the punitive war on drugs model for decades and decades and decades before declaring it a failure; how can we evaluate this after just a few years? It just takes more time to make this transition and takes more time to, you know, ramp up treatment and services for people, and because this happened three years ago, it was disrupted by the pandemic and, you know, services were not able to reach people, etc. So a really fascinating look.

Rovner: Yes, it’s quite the social experiment that’s going on in Oregon. Rachel.

Cohrs: So mine is from The New York Times, a group of reporters and a new series called “Operating Profits.” And the headline is “They Lost Their Legs. Doctors and Health Care Giants Profited.” And I think I’m just really excited to see more about this line of reporting about overutilization in health care and how certain payment incentives — I mean, they made a story about payment incentives in hospital outpatient departments and how pay rates change really personal and interesting, and it’s important. So, I mean, all these really dense rules that we’re seeing drop this summer do really have implications for patients. And there are bad actors out there who are kind of capitalizing on that. So I felt it was like really responsible reporting, mostly focused on one physician who, you know, was doing procedures that he shouldn’t have and other doctors ultimately were left to clean up the damage for these patients. And they had amputations that they maybe shouldn’t have had, which is such a serious and devastating consequence. I thought that was very important reporting, and I’m excited to see what’s next.

Rovner: Yeah, I’m looking forward to seeing the rest of the series. Well, my story this week is in the Los Angeles Times from my KFF Health News colleague Noam Levey, who’s been working on a giant project on medical debt. It’s called “Crushing Medical Debt Is Turning Americans Against Their Doctors.” And it points out something I hadn’t really thought about before, that outrageous and unexpected bills are undermining public confidence in medical providers and the medical system writ large. And so far, nobody’s doing very much about it. To quote from Noam’s piece, “Hospitals and doctors blame the government for underpaying them and blame insurers for selling plans with unaffordable deductibles. Insurers blame providers for obscene prices. Everyone blames drug companies.” Well, it’s going to take a lot of time to dig out of this hole, but probably it would help if everybody stopped digging. OK. That is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us too. Special thanks, as always, to our producer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m still @jrovner, and I’m on Threads @julie.rovner. Shefali.

Luthra: I’m @shefalil.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs: I’m @rachelcohrs.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).