The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

It took more than two years, but the Biden administration has finally kept a promise made by then-candidate Joe Biden to roll back the Trump administration’s expansion of short-term, limited-duration health plans. The plans have been controversial because, while they offer lower premiums than more comprehensive health plans, they offer far fewer benefits and are not subject to the consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act.

Also this week, the FDA for the first time approved the over-the-counter sale of a hormonal birth control pill. With more states imposing restrictions on abortion, backers of the move say making it easier to prevent pregnancy is necessary now more than ever.

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

Panelists

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Amy Goldstein
The Washington Post

@goldsteinamy

Read Amy's Stories

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The FDA’s much-anticipated approval of the first over-the-counter hormonal birth control pill followed the advice of its outside advisory committee. The pill, Opill, will be available on shelves without age restrictions.
• The Biden administration announced moves to limit so-called junk plans on insurance marketplaces. The Trump administration had dropped many restrictions on the plans, which were originally intended to be used for short-term coverage gaps.
• As the nation continues to settle into a post-Dobbs patchwork of abortion laws, the Iowa Legislature approved a six-week ban on the procedure. And an Idaho law offers a key test of cross-border policing of abortion seekers, as other states watch how it unfolds.
• In other news, Georgia’s Medicaid work requirements took effect July 1, implementing new restrictions on who is eligible for the state-federal program for people with low incomes or disabilities. And the Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action has the potential to shape the health care workforce, which research shows could have implications for the quality of patient care and health outcomes.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Bram Sable-Smith, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” feature, about a patient who lacked a permanent mailing address and never got the hospital bills from an emergency surgery — but did receive a summons after she was sued for the debt. If you have an outrageous or exorbitant medical bill you want to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Doctor Lands in the Doghouse After Giving Covid Vaccine Waivers Too Freely,” by Brett Kelman.  

Rachel Cohrs: ProPublica’s “How Often Do Health Insurers Say No to Patients? No One Knows,” by Robin Fields, and Stat’s “How UnitedHealth’s Acquisition of a Popular Medicare Advantage Algorithm Sparked Internal Dissent Over Denied Care,” by Casey Ross and Bob Herman.  

Amy Goldstein: The New York Times’ “Medicare Advantage Plans Offer Few Psychiatrists,” by Reed Abelson.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Wall Street Journal’s “America Is Wrapped in Miles of Toxic Lead Cables,” by Susan Pulliam, Shalini Ramachandran, John West, Coulter Jones, and Thomas Gryta.  

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• Stat’s “How One Medical School Became Remarkably Diverse — Without Considering Race in Admissions,” by Usha Lee McFarling.
• The New York Times’ “With End of Affirmative Action, a Push for a New Tool: Adversity Scores, by Stephanie Saul.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Long Road to Reining In Short-Term Plans 

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: The Long Road to Reining In Short-Term PlansEpisode Number: 305Published: July 13, 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 this week on Thursday, July 13, 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 Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Rovner: Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Amy Goldstein of The Washington Post.

Goldstein: Good to be with you.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with KFF Health News’ Bram Sable-Smith, who wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” The hospital that provided care to this month’s patient couldn’t find her to send her a bill, but the debt collectors sure could. But first, this week’s news. Actually, it’s more like the last month’s news because we actually haven’t talked about news in a while. So we’re going to try to hit a bunch of items in sort of a lightning round. Let’s start with something we knew was coming. We just didn’t know exactly when. Last week, the Biden administration finally cracked down on short-term health plans. Those are the ones that are not subject to the strict rules of the Affordable Care Act. Amy, you wrote about this. What are short-term plans, and why have they been so controversial?

Goldstein: Well, short-term plans — they’re called short-term limited-duration plans, and really terrible argot, but that’s their name. They’ve been around as an alternative to plans that are meeting the rules of the Affordable Care Act. They were originally designed for people to use as small bridges between, say, when they lost a job and they were about to get a new job and they needed something in the interim to provide health coverage. Republicans, during the time that they were trying very hard several years ago to get rid of as much as the Affordable Care Act as they could — they didn’t succeed at a lot of that, but they did succeed during the Trump administration at lengthening the time that people could have these plans. So they extended them from what had been a three-month maximum during the latter part of the [Barack] Obama administration to 12 months, and then they were renewable for up to three years. And Democrats began calling these “junk plans,” saying that people didn’t exactly know what they were buying, that the premiums were low but the benefits were small and if people got sick and really needed a lot of care they could be stuck paying for a lot of it on their own.

Rovner: And these were the very plans that the ACA was kind of designed to get rid of, right, where people would say, I have this great health plan, it only costs me $50 a month — but by the way, it only provides $500 worth of care.

Goldstein: Well, there’s that. And the other thing that the ACA was designed to do is treat people with preexisting conditions equally. And these plans do not have to do that. Some do, but they’re not required to. So President [Joe] Biden, since he was candidate Biden running for the 2020 election, has been saying for quite a while that he was going to knock down the duration of these plans, and some of his fellow Democrats have been leaning on him: “Why haven’t you done it yet?” And last week, he finally did. He didn’t bring it exactly to where the Obama administration had it, but he brought them down to three months with a one-month extension, so a total of four months.

Rovner: And I guess the resistance here is that they’re still kind of popular, right, for people who think they would rather pay very low premiums for very few benefits?

Goldstein: Well, the catch is that we don’t really know how popular they are because there aren’t very reliable data on how many people have these. But the presumption is that some people like them.

Rovner: All right, well we will see what happens with this time they’re trying to crack down. Let us move on to abortion and reproductive rights. We will start with the breaking news. The Food and Drug Administration just this morning approved Opill, which is the first over-the-counter birth control pill. Alice, we’ve known this was coming, right?

Ollstein: Yes, we did. We thought it would be a little later in the summer. But the decision itself reflects what the FDA’s outside advisory panel strongly recommended, which is to make these pills available over the counter without a prescription and without an age restriction, which was one looming question over this process.

Rovner: Yeah, I guess, Rachel, I mean, the issue here has been can women be trusted enough to know when they shouldn’t take birth control pills because they are contraindicated for some people?

Rachel Cohrs: Right. And I think that certainly it’s important to read through the information. There’s a question as to whether women will do that. And one part of the release that stood out to me is that the specific type of pill that this is requires women to take it around the same time every day, which is not necessarily the case for all birth control pills. And I think there’s a little bit more flexibility than there used to be with this kind of pill. But it is just important that all of this communication happens. And if there’s not a doctor or pharmacist in the middle, I think it will be kind of interesting to see how this plays out in the real world.

Rovner: Well, while this could definitely help people prevent pregnancy who don’t want to get pregnant, there’s certainly a lot of action still in the states around abortion. We’re going to start in Iowa, which since the last time we spoke has done basically a 360 on abortion. Last month, the state Supreme Court deadlocked on whether to reinstate a 2018 ban on almost all abortions. That left a lower court order blocking the ban intact, so abortion remained legal in Iowa. But anti-abortion Gov. Kim Reynolds refused to take no for an answer. She called a special session of the state legislature, which on Tuesday essentially repassed the 2018 ban. It’s supposed to take effect as soon as the governor signs it, which could be as soon as Friday. But first it goes back to court, right, Alice?

Ollstein: Right. As with all of these things, there’s just a lot of back-and-forth before it’s final. Groups have already filed a lawsuit. And, you know, because the courts’ sort of mixed treatment of the previous version of this, we sort of don’t know what’s going to happen. But the law could go into effect and then be blocked by courts later or it could be blocked before it goes into effect. There’s a lot of different ways this could go, but this is one of several states where new restrictions are coming online. We’re more than a year out from the Dobbs decision now, and things are not settled at all. Things are still flipping back and forth in different states.

Rovner: Yeah, there’s a lot of states where old restrictions came into effect and then were blocked and now they’re putting new restrictions and they might be blocked. Well, turning to another “I” state, this time Idaho, where the legislature this spring passed a first-in-the-nation bill attempting to criminalize the act of helping a minor cross state lines for an abortion, even if the abortion is legal in the state the minor travels to. Now, abortion rights supporters have filed a first-in-the-nation lawsuit to block the first-in-the-nation law. This could have really big ramifications. This is different from a lot of what’s going on in a lot of the other states, right?

Ollstein: Yeah. Over the last year, there’s been a lot of fear on the left of states reaching across their borders to try to police abortion. And it hasn’t really happened yet that we have seen. And so this, I think, is a key test of whether more states will attempt to go in this direction. You know, a lot of blue states passed sort of shield laws for patients, for providers, for data, out of fear that more red states would attempt more cross-border policing. But that really hasn’t materialized broadly yet.

Rovner: I remember Missouri was the one that was talking about it, right, to make it a crime if —

Ollstein: Right.

Rovner: I know they didn’t do it, but they were talking about if women went particularly to Illinois, which is now one of these abortion havens, and came back, they would try to prosecute them, although that never really came to be.

Ollstein: Exactly. And so it’s interesting that even really conservative states with big Republican majorities, most have not gone down this road yet. And so I imagine a lot of them are watching how this case goes.

Rovner: Well, as long as we’re talking about states that start with “I,” let’s turn to Indiana, where Planned Parenthood reports that all of their appointments for abortions are taken between now and when that state’s near-total ban takes effect in a few weeks. This points out something I think often gets missed in these sort of score card maps of states that have bans and restrictions, which is there’s a lot of states where abortion is technically still legal but realistically not available, right?

Ollstein: The difference between being technically legal and available is nothing new. This was true prior to Dobbs as well. There were lots of states that only had one abortion clinic for the entire state. There were, like, six of those. And so, you know, you may have the right to have the procedure on paper, but if there’s only one place you could go and you’re not able to physically get there or they don’t have an appointment within the time window you need, you’re out of luck; that right isn’t, you know, meaningful for you. And so that’s becoming, you know, more true as abortion access is eliminated in a lot of the country and more and more people are depending on fewer and fewer states.

Rovner: And fewer and fewer clinics in fewer and fewer states. Well, finally, an update on the one-man nomination blockade by Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville, who we talked about in March. He has stopped approval of basically all Defense Department personnel moves, including routine promotions, in protest of the Biden administration’s policy of providing leave and travel expenses for servicewomen to get abortions if they’re stationed in states where it’s illegal. Now, for the first time in more than 150 years, the Marine Corps has no approved commandant. Any idea which side’s going to back down here? Rachel, this is backing up the entire legislative calendar in the Senate, right?

Cohrs: It is. And I think some of the coverage this week has highlighted just how there hasn’t really been a willingness among Republican leadership to really put the pressure on Tuberville. But honestly, I don’t know when this stops for him. Having temporary leadership in all these positions isn’t kind of the impetus for him to say that he’s made his point. And I think there are also questions about — there may be more education required about exactly what the difference is between a temporary leader and a permanently installed leader. Obviously, the decisions that they’re making every day are life-and-death and are different than the leadership positions we see over at something like the NIH [National Institutes of Health], where, you know, I think it is —

Rovner: Which is also held up. But that’s another story.

Cohrs: Right, another story. But I just don’t see where this ends quite yet, unless there’s some will from Republican leadership to really bring him in line. And they just haven’t summoned that yet.

Rovner: I imagine there’ll be a vote on this when they get to the defense bill, right, which —the defense authorization, which is going to come up, I think, in both houses in the coming weeks. I mean, one would think that if there’s a vote and he loses, he might back down. I’m just guessing here. I guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens with that. All right. Well, it’s also been a busy couple of weeks in other social policy. On the one hand, a new federal law took effect that makes it easier for people to get accommodations to be able to do their jobs while pregnant. And Maine is going to start offering paid family and parental leave, although not until 2026. That makes it the 13th state to enact such a policy. On the other hand, Georgia is the first state to implement work requirements for Medicaid. Amy, the last time we discussed this, federal judges had tossed out Medicaid work requirements and Republicans in Congress were unsuccessful in getting those requirements back into the debt ceiling compromise. So how come Georgia gets to do this?

Goldstein: Well, I’ve begun to think of Medicaid work requirements as whack-a-mole, if you remember the arcade game in which you knock down an animal with a mallet only to have it pop up unexpectedly somewhere else. So, as you say, work requirements was something that Republicans were very eager to institute in 2017, 2018, when the Trump administration’s Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services encouraged states to adopt them. And there were basically plans to give people Medicaid at the time, mainly people in Medicaid expansion groups, if they worked or went to school or did community service for at least 80 hours a month. As you say, that was knocked down both by a district court and then a federal circuit court. And it looked like that was that, particularly when the Biden administration came along and undid the Trump administration’s regulation that had allowed states to submit proposals, the waivers for these kinds of plans. Well, lo and behold, Georgia said they wanted to do this. They said they wanted to do it in a little bit different way, because, for the first time ever, Georgia was going to be a partial expansion state for Medicaid, allowing people to get onto Medicaid if they had incomes up to the poverty level but not up to the full expansion poverty level that the ACA allows. And the Biden administration didn’t like that so much. And that partial expansion was to be twinned with work requirements. The Biden administration didn’t —

Rovner: For that expansion group, though, right? Not for everybody.

Goldstein: Just for that partial expansion group. The Biden administration didn’t like that so much. But last summer, a judge in Georgia said, no, she thinks this is OK. And the reason was that, unlike the other states, if this was pegged to a partial expansion, any expansion with work requirements would increase the number of people with Medicaid. So that was sort of in her judge judgment — I shouldn’t say the judge’s judgment — consistent with the purposes of the program. So Georgia has gone ahead, and the beginning of this month they allowed people to start enrolling in something called Georgia Pathways to Coverage. And we’ll have to see how it goes.

Rovner: Yeah. And just to be clear, I mean, Alice, you did some stellar work back a couple of years ago about Arkansas, about people losing coverage because of the work requirements, even if they were working, just because of how hard it was to report the work hours, right?

Ollstein: Absolutely. I mean, it’s kind of what we’re seeing now with the Medicaid unwinding, is that, you know, people just aren’t able to know what’s going on, aren’t able to be reached, fall through the cracks, can’t navigate the bureaucracy, and lose coverage that they should be entitled to. So we saw that happen, and I think to Amy’s point, the administration seems to be taking a very different stance on states like Arkansas, you know, which already had expanded Medicaid and then went to impose a work requirement, whereas Georgia didn’t have it before and this is kind of a compromise because it’s like, well, more people will be insured if we allow this to go forward total, you know, so maybe it’s better than nothing, although a lot of folks on the left are very opposed to the concept of work requirements, citing data that the people who are on Medicaid who can work are already working — the vast, vast, vast majority. And those who are not working, either they are caring for a child or someone with disability, or they themselves have a disability, or they’re a student. You know, there’s all these categories of why folks are unable to work.

Rovner: But in this expansion group, one would assume that if they’re earning up to the federal poverty line, they have some source of income. So one would assume that many of them are working. But I think it’ll be really interesting for researchers to watch to see, you know, a sort of a proof of concept in either direction with this.

Goldstein: And let me quickly mention a couple of things. Georgia’s rules are actually in some ways the same as what other states had tried to do previously. But in other ways, this is the strictest set of work requirements that anyone has tried in a couple of ways: People have to meet these work requirements up to age 64, which is older than other states had done for the most part. There’s also no exemption if you’re taking care of a child or taking care of an older family member. So how well people, in addition to the bureaucratic hoops that Alice was talking about, which are of grave concern to some of the people who oppose this in Georgia — there’s also a question of who’s going to actually be able to qualify for this.

Rovner: While we are on the subject of court decisions, one of the odd court decisions that I think has happened over the past few weeks is a federal district court decision out of Louisiana barring many officials in the Biden administration, including the surgeon general and the head of the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], from talking to social media sites, particularly about things like medical misinformation. This feels like something I had not seen before in terms of actually trying to ban the administration from talking to private companies based on First Amendment concerns, which is what this is.

Cohrs: Right. Well, I mean, the First Amendment protects speech from interference from the government —

Rovner: Right

Cohrs: — which has always been, you know, this gray area with these independent platforms. And I think this issue, you know, has obviously become highly politicized. It came up several times when Rochelle Walensky, the former CDC director, was testifying on the Hill. So I think certainly we’ve seen this trend overall in these highly political court decisions and this strategy that certain litigants are taking where they’re trying to find defendants in a certain jurisdiction that’s going to be advantageous to them. So it will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out in the future and makes its way through the court system, but certainly is an eye-popping precedent. Like you mentioned, we don’t usually see something like this.

Rovner: And I wanted to mention, I think also because this is yet another of these judges that the right has found that are likely to agree with them. Like we’ve seen now: The judges in Texas, we now have one in Louisiana. Sort of kind of watch that docket. While we are still on the subject of courts, 2023 was the first year in the last decade or so that there was not a major health-related decision in the last big cases decided by the Supreme Court. But it seems like one of those non-health cases, the one essentially striking down affirmative action, might have some major implications for health care after all, particularly for medical education, right?

Cohrs: Yes. Some of my colleagues did some I think great follow-up reporting on this. And I think the idea is that there has been research that has shown that when patients are able to see a doctor of their same racial background, that it does have positive implications for their care. And there has also been studies of schools where there have been bans on race-conscious admissions showing that there is a decrease in medical school students from underrepresented backgrounds traditionally. And so I think that cause and effect is concerning for people, that if there are fewer medical students — there already aren’t a representative amount — from underrepresented groups, that could trickle down to, again, just exacerbating so many of these inequities that we see in health care provision. I know there was just a big study on the maternal mortality outcomes that came out recently as well. And I think all of these things are tied together. And I think Axios reported on one interesting potential loophole, was using proxy measures, like where someone went to school or their parents’ background, something like that, to try to ensure diversity from that lens. But I think it certainly is going to make these medical schools recalculate how they’re doing admissions and make some hard choices about how to maintain diversity that can be beneficial for patients.

Rovner: One thing that I think has come up in all of these discussions is the fact that the University of California-Davis has done an interesting job of creating a very diverse medical school class, even though race-conscious admissions have been banned in California for years. So I think a lot of schools are going to be looking sort of to see what UC Davis has done and perhaps emulate that. And I will put one of the UC Davis stories in the show notes for everybody. All right. Finally in this week’s news, the drug industry has filed a lawsuit challenging the Medicare drug price negotiation program that’s just now starting to get off the ground. Rachel, you wrote about this. How does pharma think it can block price-setting for Medicare that Medicare does for pretty much everything else that Medicare pays for? They set prices for hospitals and doctors and medical equipment. Why are drugmakers thinking that they’re special?

Cohrs: Right. So, again, this is four lawsuits as well, not just one: two from two trade groups and two drugmakers. And they’re each kind of using different arguments. But I think the big picture here is if the government called it price-setting, I don’t think pharma would have as much of an argument, but they’re calling it a negotiation. And I think one of the drugmakers’ key claims is that by signing these contracts to enter into this process, they’re tacitly admitting that this price that they come up with in this process is, quote-unquote, “fair.” And, you know, they don’t want to agree to that because then it makes the price that they’re charging everyone else look unfair on the other side of the coin. And I think there’s also these really high penalties for these companies who decide not to participate; I mean, tens of millions of dollars on the first day is the kind of number that we’re seeing for some of these companies that have filed lawsuits. And I think there’s also the option for them to take all of their drugs off of the market. But I think there’s a question with the timeline of whether they could have even done that before the law was passed. So the big picture from the drugmaker side of things is that the penalties are so high for them not to participate and that the government is framing this as a negotiation when it really is just price-setting, like Medicare does in so many other areas. So I think one interesting development that happened this week was that the [U.S.] Chamber of Commerce filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which could make all of these lawsuits move much faster and really put a stop to the program. We hadn’t seen either of these lawsuits request a motion like that. And I think they requested a ruling by Oct. 1, which is when the first kind of round of 10 drugmakers would have had to sign their contracts with Medicare. So I think this certainly is picking up speed and urgency as we’re moving toward that Sept. 1 selection date.

Rovner: I didn’t even notice. Are these lawsuits all filed here in Washington, D.C., or —

Cohrs: No, they are not. As we’ve seen, the drugmakers are very strategic in where they filed. I think Merck did file in D.C., but the chamber filed in Ohio; it had some of their local chapters join in as well. I think we saw another company file in New Jersey. So I think they are kind of hedging their bets and trying to get rulings from as many different jurisdictions as they can.

Rovner: Find a judge who’s willing to slap an injunction on this whole thing.

Cohrs: Yes.

Rovner: Which we will talk about when and if it happens. All right. That is this week’s news, or at least as much as we have time to get to. Now, we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Bram Sable-Smith, and then we will be back with our extra credits. We are pleased to welcome back to the podcast Bram Sable-Smith, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” Bram, so nice to see you again.

Bram Sable-Smith: Always a pleasure to be here.

Rovner: So, this month’s patient was, like a lot of young people, an uninsured 23-year-old when she ended up in the emergency room. Tell us who she is and what kind of medical care she needed and got.

Sable-Smith: Yeah, that’s right. Her name was Bethany Birch. And, in addition to being uninsured, she was also unemployed at the time, and she had had pain in her diaphragm for eight months. It prevented her from eating. She lost about 25 pounds in that time. And when she went to the emergency room, she found out she needed her gallbladder removed.

Rovner: And got it, right?

Sable-Smith: And got it. Yeah, she got that surgery almost immediately. Because she hadn’t been eating food — her food resistance — it meant she could get in for surgery right away.

Rovner: And that cured her? Yes?

Sable-Smith: It did cure her. Yes, she felt a lot better.

Rovner: So now we’re talking about the bill. The hospital tried to send her the bill, but apparently it couldn’t find her. Is this a common thing, and why couldn’t they find her? One presumes she gave them an address when she presented at the emergency room.

Sable-Smith: She did give them an address, but by the time she was discharged, she had lost her housing. Her home situation was unstable. So just that brief visit to the hospital, by the time she left, she had no more house to live in. And she did end up crashing with her family for several months. And, eventually, she did update her address with the post office. But by the time she had done that, it was after the hospital had sent the three bills to her for her visit.

Rovner: So the hospital doesn’t get any response, and they do what we know hospitals do. They sued for nonpayment. And the debt collection firm did manage to find her. So then what happened?

Sable-Smith: Well, she went to court, and like so many people who end up in court with medical debt, she did not have a lawyer representing her. She met with a representative from the debt collection firm, and she worked out a payment plan to pay her bill, plus court costs, in $100 monthly installments. But at the time, Tennessee had a default interest rate on judgments like the one that Bethany had of 7%. So the judge tacked on a 7% interest rate to her bill.

Rovner: So, yeah, and that was presumably a lot for her to carry. What finally happened with the bill?

Sable-Smith: Well, she paid her $100 monthly payments for over four years. It totaled about $5,200 she paid in that time. But at the same time, the interest rate was accruing. And so she owed an additional $2,700 on top of the initial bill that she had gotten. From her perspective, it was just impossible. She wasn’t digging out of this debt. So she started getting help from a family friend, who’s a billing expert, who took on her case. They asked the hospital and the debt collection firm to settle her debt because she had already paid so much. But they were unsuccessful in doing so. They sent their bill to us. We started reporting the story. Then they asked again to settle her debt by paying an additional $100 on top of what she had already paid. And this time they agreed. And so she settled her debt and she got a balance-zero statement.

Rovner: Amazing how just one phone call from us can do some work. Now, as somebody who is unemployed and, as you pointed out, uninsured at the time she got the care, Bethany should have been eligible for the hospital’s financial assistance policy. Why didn’t she get help before the debt ballooned with court costs and all that interest?

Sable-Smith: Well, the simple answer is that she never applied. But, as we know, it’s much more complicated than that. So given her status as single, uninsured, unemployed, it’s very possible that she would have qualified for financial help, maybe even for free care altogether. But the onus was on her as a patient to apply. And we know her situation was unstable. You know, she went through a period of homelessness. She didn’t have a lot of expendable money at the time. It’s a long process to apply for these programs. There’s a lot of forms. It can be cumbersome. And that prevents a lot of people from applying to these programs. So advocates push for something called presumptive eligibility, where the hospital takes the onus of applying away from patients and they automatically put them through the process. And this hospital that Bethany went to, they actually have switched to that presumptive eligibility model, just not in time to help her case.

Rovner: So what’s the takeaway here? I guess everybody has to be a proactive patient, not just with your medical care, but especially with your bills. What happens to a patient who finds themselves in a similar situation?

Sable-Smith: Well, you know, from a consumer standpoint like that, one takeaway is to ask for financial help. A lot more people qualify than you might think. You might not think you qualify, but it’s very possible you could. And then from a policy perspective, hospitals switching to presumptive eligibility — that’s something that they’re able to do. And also, some states have pushed to ban or even limit interest payments on this kind of medical debt. So that’s something that other people are considering as well.

Rovner: Or you can write to us, and we will show you how in our show notes.

Sable-Smith: That’s always a possibility, too.

Rovner: Bram Sable-Smith, thank you so much.

Sable-Smith: Yeah, thanks 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. Rachel, why don’t you go first?

Cohrs: OK, I’m cheating a little bit and I’m doing a double feature. So the first story for my extra credit is headlined “How Often Do Health Insurers Say No to Patients? No One Knows.” It’s in ProPublica by Robin Fields, and I think it’s just a great feature on the idea that Obamacare entitled the government and patients to more information about how often insurers deny care to patients. And the government hasn’t really pursued that information. And even, like, state health insurance commissions aren’t providing the information they’re collecting. And Robin just had such a difficult time getting any sort of information from anyone, even though we’re legally entitled to it. So I thought that was just kind of a great highlight of this next area of criticism of the health insurance industry, which, and I think that —

Rovner: I would say, all this focus on premiums and not as much focus on what you actually get for those premiums.

Cohrs: Exactly. So true. I think there’ve been some high-profile examples, great reporting. And I thought that meshed well with some reporting from my colleagues Casey Ross and Bob Herman, who wrote a follow-up to some of their prior reporting titled “How UnitedHealth’s Acquisition of a Popular Medicare Advantage Algorithm Sparked Internal Dissent Over Denied Care.” Again, looking at how algorithms in this one privatized Medicare program, which is growing in size and enrollment across the country, was actually overruling clinicians’ decisions about how long patients should be receiving care in facilities. And if the algorithm says they should be done, then they’re done. And I think it definitely sparked some concerns from people in the company who were willing to speak to them just because they were so concerned about this trend.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: I have a very impressive investigation from The Wall Street Journal. There are five bylines, and we will post the link. This is about lead-covered telecom cables owned by AT&T, Verizon, other companies that have been left to decay and leach into the environment all around the country. This documents how the companies knew about them but have not moved to clean them up and get rid of them. They are impacting water sources. They are near playgrounds where children are, and it goes into the very disturbing health impacts of lead exposure. This is something the country has made a lot of progress on when it comes to paint and other sources, but obviously we still have a long way to go.

Rovner: Yeah, because there’s not enough things to be worried about environmentally, here is something else. It is very good reporting.

Rovner: Amy.

Goldstein: My extra credit this week is from The New York Times, by Reed Abelson, with the headline “Medicare Advantage Plans Offer Few Psychiatrists.” And this isn’t a giant story, but I think it is at the nexus of two very important questions: one, the long-standing question of whether privatized Medicare is better or worse for people who are older Americans on Medicare than the traditional version of Medicare; and the question of are people getting enough access to mental health care? And I guess what struck me is that there’s been so much attention lately to the question of access to mental health services for younger Americans, and this looked at the question of access to mental health services for older Americans. And what this story, based on a study, talks about is that the study found that more than half of the counties, the researchers who did this study found, is that those counties did not have a single psychiatrist participating in Medicare Advantage and that a lot of these plans have what’s called “narrow” or “skinny” networks, where a very small fraction of the available psychiatrists in a community were in that plan’s network. Now, [there are] people who are criticizing that study saying, well, you can’t look at just psychiatrists; there are other people who provide competent mental health care. But I think it just raises the question of who is getting what they need.

Rovner: Indeed. Well, my story this week is also about just plain good reporting. It’s called “Doctor Lands in the Doghouse After Giving Covid Vaccine Waivers Too Freely.” It’s by Brett Kelman of KFF Health News. But it’s about some old-fashioned reporting by another outlet, Nashville’s NewsChannel 5. It seemed that during the height of the covid vaccine rollout, when lots of places were requiring proof of vaccines and lots of people didn’t want to get them, the doctor in question, named Robert Coble, was providing waivers through a website without much —OK, any — oversight. How did they prove it? By obtaining a waiver for a reporter’s black Labrador retriever, Charlie. Earlier this spring, Coble quietly surrendered his medical license to the state Department of Health. Journalism works. 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 still tweet me. I’m @jrovner. I’m on Threads too, @julie.rovner.

Rovner: Amy.

Goldstein: I’m @goldsteinamy.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs: I’m @rachelcohrs on Twitter and @rachelcohrsreporter on Threads.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein.

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).

-Code also considers health of victim, withdrawal from case Guyana’s Code for Prosecutors provides sufficient basis for Local Government Minister Nigel Dharamlall  to be charged with the rape of a 16-year old girl although the complainant has formally asked to withdraw the complaint, the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) said on Saturday. “Public interest considerations ...

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

It’s an understatement to say a lot has happened in the year since the Supreme Court overturned the nationwide right to abortion in its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

But while many of the subsequent legislative and court actions to either ban or preserve access to abortion were predicted, the decision has had other, sometimes far-reaching consequences.

In this special episode of KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” four reporters who have closely covered the issue — host and KFF Health News chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call — try to condense all that has happened since the nationwide right to abortion was revoked.

Panelists

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefalil

Read Shefali's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• In the Dobbs ruling last year, some justices said the decision would settle the issue of abortion in the courts. That has turned out not to be the case; jurisprudence about abortion access continues, largely in state courts.
• President Joe Biden has issued executive orders to preserve access to reproductive health care, including recently by directing federal agencies to find ways to increase access to contraception. But not all of the administration’s calls have translated into federal action, and some progressive groups are disappointed the Biden administration has not gone further in protecting abortion care.
• Perhaps the most significant action in Congress has been Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) blocking Pentagon nominations over a Defense Department policy supporting the ability of troops and their dependents to travel for abortion care. So far he has held up more than 250 nominations amid accusations that he is undermining national security.
• After Dobbs, there was anxiety in Democratic-run states that abortion restrictions would seep across state borders and lead to interstate prosecutions targeting abortion care. Those concerns have, so far, not materialized. Meanwhile, some states are attempting more roundabout ways to ban abortion, such as requiring all abortions be performed in hospitals when there are no hospitals in the state that perform the procedure.
• Polls show voters are now more supportive of abortion access than they have been in many years; more opposed to second-trimester bans; and more likely to identify abortion as a key priority when they vote. Health care providers are finding themselves pressed into advocacy or choosing to move to other states, potentially creating long-term care deserts.
• Plus, our panel of reporters reflects on one thing that will stick with them from their experiences covering abortion in the first year after the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Alina Salganicoff, senior vice president and director for Women’s Health Policy at KFF. For KFF research and resources on reproductive health, click here.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest the favorite abortion-related stories they wrote in the past year they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Three Things About the Abortion Debate That Many People Get Wrong,” by Julie Rovner.

Shefali Luthra: The 19th’s “93 Days: The Summer America Lost Roe v. Wade,” by Shefali Luthra.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “Kansas’ Abortion Vote Kicks Off New Post-Roe Era,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.

Sandhya Raman: Roll Call’s “Conservatives Use Abortion Strategies in Fight Over Trans Care,” by Sandhya Raman.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: A Year Without Roe

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’

Episode Title: A Year Without Roe

Episode Number: 304

Published: June 29, 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 at KFF Health News. We’re back in Washington this week, joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters. We’re taping this week on Thursday, June 29, 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: Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Luthra: Hello.

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Raman: Good morning.

Rovner: So after last week’s special with the current and two former Health and Human Services secretaries, which I hope you all enjoyed, we have another special episode for you this week, one year after Roe fell. Saturday, June 24, marked a year since the Supreme Court overturned the nationwide right to abortion with its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. We’re going to start with an interview with my KFF colleague Alina Salganicoff, all about the work KFF has done on this topic over the last year. Spoiler alert: It’s been a lot. Then we’ll have our regular panel discussion. So, without further ado, here is the interview. I am pleased to welcome to the podcast my colleague Alina Salganicoff, senior vice president and director of Women’s Health Policy here at KFF. Alina, welcome to “What the Health?”

Alina Salganicoff: Thank you. Delighted to be here.

Rovner: So it’s an understatement to say that a lot has happened on the women’s health front in the year since the Supreme Court decided Dobbs. But I think your group has produced an enormous volume of information that a lot of journalists and researchers have already used to help paint a picture of those changes. For those who haven’t taken a stroll through the resources available at kff.org/womens-health-policy, give us an idea of what can be found there.

Salganicoff: Well, we have been collecting a tremendous amount of information. Most recently we released a survey of OB-GYNs on their experiences pre- and post-Dobbs and really found some very, I think, alarming findings in terms of the impact of Dobbs on clinical care. We’re also tracking abortion coverage, as well as tracking the availability of abortion at the state level, and we do that routinely. We have a litigation tracker that tracks litigation at the federal and the state level, and that’s just been a very active part of our portfolio and analysis as well. And that’s just an example of a few things that we have going on. But we also have an abortion dashboard, where we provide up-to-date information and analysis and data, not only for work that KFF has been doing, but also synthesis and analysis of other work that’s going on in the field.

Rovner: This is information that, I will confess, a lot of reporters have been using over the course of the year. So thank you for that. How would you describe the state of abortion rights in the U.S. a year post the overturn of Roe?

Salganicoff: Well, that’s a huge question. The answer, of course, truly depends on where you live. In states where abortion is banned, access has been all but eliminated, except for in the rarest circumstances. And honestly, in most cases, even women who qualify for those exceptions have nowhere to go or aren’t being served. In many other states, there are restrictions, particularly those with gestational bans that restrict where people seeking abortion can go. And even in states that uphold abortion rights, people may still need to travel far for abortions, even if … and maybe not even have access to telehealth abortions where they live.

Rovner: So I know this is an even harder question. Can you take 30 seconds to tell us what you think the biggest difference has been compared to a year ago, or I guess it’s now a year and a week ago?

Salganicoff: Well, that is a big ask, Julie. But I will say, for those who live in states where abortion is banned or greatly restricted, this is where you really see the biggest change. And this has, as we anticipated, disproportionately affected pregnant people of color, those who are young and low-income. But also, abortion bans have made it more dangerous for pregnant women and others to have a baby or to get needed medical care. Those seeking abortions have been the hardest hit, but they’re not the only group. And I think also that there’s growing awareness and acceptance that abortion cannot be relegated to the shadows of health care or banned without having broad repercussions on other aspects of health care. Maternity care, emergency care, treatment for cancer and autoimmune disease have all been impacted as well.

Rovner: Yeah, I think that’s been a big revelation for a lot of people, that lots of pregnant women who worked hard to get pregnant and are trying to have babies but have problems in their pregnancy are caught in some of these restrictions, even if unintentionally.

Salganicoff: Absolutely. And I think that the issue of the large disparities we have in this nation on maternal mortality really has brought this issue much more into the limelight, and really seeing how abortion is going to be connected to maternal mortality in this country.

Rovner: So, like me, you’ve been doing this work for a long time now. What surprised you most about the fallout from a year without Roe?

Salganicoff: Right. Well, when Roe fell, I think many of us anticipated in a short time half the states would ban abortion. And while that has happened in 14 states, legal challenges, along with ballot initiatives and elections, have made it clear that there is a will to maintain abortion access in many places where we didn’t think that was possible. Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, they’re all great examples of that, but they’re not the only states. The other, I think, has been the issue of the FDA and mifepristone, where the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked the lower-court ruling that would have essentially overturned the FDA’s scientific assessment of the safety and effectiveness of the drug, as well as the guardrails that are necessary for dispensing. But that case is not resolved. And then, finally, we have the issue of the Comstock Act, which is also related to that, which is an anti-vice law from 1873 that holds the potential, if enforced, to block the distribution of not only mifepristone but potentially anything that’s used with the intent to perform an abortion. That doesn’t mean just mailing the pill from the clinician to the patient, but also distributing the medication. And it’s going to affect states across the country, not just those where abortion is banned.

Rovner: So lots more to watch. One of your reports that surprised me was how many abortion restrictions there are in states even where abortion isn’t banned, and what we think of as pretty blue, like Massachusetts and Maryland. What kind of restrictions still exist in places that are otherwise considered abortion-destination states?

Salganicoff: Yes, that’s some work that we’ve recently done some analysis on. Yeah. Even if abortion is not legally banned, states can establish regulations and other requirements that effectively restrict access. In states like Maryland and Massachusetts, those are parental consent, or notification, laws. But there are other requirements such as waiting periods, ultrasound requirements, as well as laws that only permit those who have medical degrees to perform or dispense medication abortion pills, even though we know that advanced-practice clinicians, like physician assistants or nurse-midwives, can safely perform these procedures. That makes it harder for people, even in those states, as well as those who travel to get access to abortion.

Rovner: So, presumably, abortion rights advocates have work to do in many states, not just ones with bans.

Salganicoff: That’s right.

Rovner: I think another thing that came as a surprise to me, and we’ve already mentioned this briefly, is how health care for women that is not abortion has been affected. What are doctors telling you?

Salganicoff: Yeah. We recently did a survey of OB-GYNs, and I’ve also been out in the field in several conferences and meetings. And, you know, there’s been a lot of attention recently to the issue of miscarriage management, but also dealing with pregnancy in general and possibly also in the context of cancer care, care for chronic diseases, and emergency care. For example, there have been concerns about access to drugs like methotrexate, which is an abortifacient. It’s used to treat ectopic pregnancies, but it’s also used to treat cancer and autoimmune disease. And we’ve been seeing and hearing at least anecdotal reports about difficulties in accessing that drug. Our OB-GYN survey finds that clinicians are really worried about maternal mortality, their ability to provide care that meets the standards of care — medical care and the norms — and also to provide miscarriage care. That should worry not only those who can get pregnant, but many others as well.

Rovner: So what are you working on now that we should keep an eye out for?

Salganicoff: Well, of course, we’re laser-focused on tracking and analyzing the broader implications of the Dobbs ruling on abortion access. But we’re also focused on contraceptive access as well. And I think that hasn’t gotten nearly as much attention. There’s the issue of how Title X, which is the federal family planning program, is going to proceed in light of a federal decision to withhold the Title X grants for Oklahoma and Tennessee, states that are refusing to follow the requirement that Title X patients be given nondirective pregnancy counseling and referral. So this is an area that I think is going to get some attention on the Hill and in the courts, and I think other states are watching that. The other issue … are developments around emergency contraception and the real confusion that our polling has really documented about whether it’s legal and available. And we actually saw in our OB-GYN survey very low rates of physicians providing emergency contraception to their patients. And then finally, where all eyes are, of course, on the FDA for their decision about the over-the-counter status of an oral contraceptive pill. And we’re going to be looking at how that’s all going to roll out in the pharmacies, as well as whether there’s going to be an opportunity to provide insurance coverage for that newly available method.

Rovner: Lots more to come. I guess we’ll have to do this again next year. Alina Salganicoff, thank you so much for joining us.

Salganicoff: Thank you for inviting me. It’s been a pleasure.

Rovner: OK. We are back and I’m so pleased to have three of my favorite reproductive health specialists at the table today, who have spent a lot of the last year reporting from around the country and, in some cases, around the world. Alice, Shefali, Sandhya: Thank you all for being here. So I want to start with the people who are most affected by the Supreme Court’s action last year. What has happened to women seeking abortions since last year and women seeking other types of health care, too, for that matter?

Luthra: I think the data is pretty compelling, right? We can look at the WeCount numbers that just came out right before the anniversary. The number of recorded legal abortions has fallen quite precipitously. We have seen thousands fewer people get abortions. We’ve also seen dramatic increases in people traveling for care, going to Florida, to Illinois, to North Carolina, among many others. And what those numbers don’t always tell us is how difficult that journey is, how expensive it is. I think a lot about this study from when SB 8, the Texas six-week abortion ban, took effect, and they found there that some of the people who were traveling out of state, it took them so much money they couldn’t afford food for a week and then they ate whatever they could; they couldn’t afford dog food because it was just that difficult of a trip. And what we’re seeing is just people are, in some cases, accessing health care and other cases they are not. And it is becoming a lot harder and in some cases life-threatening. We’re all hearing the stories about people experiencing pregnancy complications and not being able to get timely care flying across several states while afraid they could go into premature labor on the plane.

Ollstein: Everything Shefali said is true. I also think that we need to put our critical hats on when we look at some of this early, preliminary data that’s coming out. It just takes time to get very solid, reliable data. And while the WeCount report is helpful, it has a lot of holes in it, and it makes estimates, and it doesn’t include people who are obtaining mifepristone and self-managing their abortions outside the medical system. You know, it doesn’t include data from certain providers and certain states. And so I think it will just take time to get a really accurate picture of what’s going on. We are sort of cobbling it together. You know, we have providers in blue states reporting how much increase they’re seeing in people coming in. We get some data from groups like Aid Access that mail the pills about the demand they are seeing. But there are a lot of people who aren’t going to show up in any of those counts. And we just sort of don’t know what’s happening to that, other than anecdotally, based on our reporting on the ground. And so I think, yes, there are a lot of people obtaining pills, there are a lot of people traveling, and there are a lot of people for whom neither of those are possible options and that they are going forward with pregnancies that they otherwise would have terminated.

Rovner: I think one of my biggest takeaways from the last year is the broader understanding of how common pregnancy complications are. I think a lot of people did not expect to see so many women with wanted pregnancies have difficulty getting care that they needed. I think people didn’t realize how common pregnancy complications are; they affect about 8% of pregnancies, or that’s 1 in every 12.5. That is a lot of people. And of course, as we all know, maternal mortality and morbidity in this country is embarrassingly high compared to other industrialized countries. I think people, particularly in the anti-abortion movement, used to talk about, you know, these serious pregnancy complications as being extremely rare. They just aren’t. I think we’re finally starting to see people talk about that.

Raman: You know, the past year I’ve seen so much more in the public consciousness about miscarriage management, which is something that we’ve all covered in the past, but it’s not something that I think has been talked about as much, brought up as much, some of the complications there. And especially when the treatment for miscarriages in many cases is very similar to what is done for abortions, and just some of the difficulties that different folks have been experiencing being able to get that care for miscarriages even if they are not seeking an abortion and it’s a wanted pregnancy. I think that has really come to light a lot as well.

Rovner: So the Supreme Court majority, I think in their majority opinion, sort of said they hoped that this would be the last word on abortion for a while. It obviously was not. So let let’s do a quick review of what’s happened in the courts since Dobbs was decided last year. I guess the big one that we’re waiting on is the case of mifepristone, the abortion pill, right?

Ollstein: That’s the main federal one, although there are some other ones. But as we all sort of knew at the time, this is really a state-by-state fight. And the state-level cases are still continuing to play out. You know, just recently there were some major rulings, in Wyoming, in South Carolina. We’re waiting on Iowa. There was this declaration by the justices that overturned Roe v. Wade that this would sort of “settle the issue,” quote-unquote. And it is extremely unsettled.

Rovner: It is. And of course we should mention that a lot of these state cases are  because even though the Supreme Court ruled that the federal Constitution doesn’t have any right to abortion, a lot of states say that their state constitutions do.

Luthra: And the South Carolina one is particularly interesting because, in January, we had the state Supreme Court say that their constitution did not allow for a six-week ban. And just this week, that same Supreme Court, with one change in membership, heard almost the same version, a slightly different six-week ban, and there is a good chance they uphold it, which really speaks to not only the role of the courts in dictating abortion rights on a state-by-state level, but also the role of individual changes in the makeup of those courts and how just this one really small thing, like someone aging out of being on the state Supreme Court, can change access for thousands of people.

Ollstein: And state constitutions, even though they don’t have the word “abortion,” often are way more protective of abortion than people might have predicted. To Shefali’s point, that goes to which judges are interpreting it. But also you have some of these rulings in states we think of as very far to the right that are surprisingly protective of abortion. And I think that fight is continuing to play out. And I’m sure we’re going to get into later the attempts to insert language into the state constitutions that’s explicitly protective of abortion.

Luthra: One element on the federal courts that I think is worth flagging that is relevant to this mifepristone case as well, right — which, to recap, is currently at the 5th Circuit; they are debating whether to take mifepristone off the market, to impose more restrictions on how it’s prescribed. This will probably end up at the Supreme Court again, maybe within the year. But dormant in that case, and something that a lot of scholars have talked about, is this new legal questioning around the Comstock Act, this very old anti-obscenity law used in the past to censor Walt Whitman, to ban “Ulysses,” all sorts of crazy things, and is now being argued as a legal vehicle to end access not only to mifepristone, but to anything that can be mailed for an abortion. And scholars are quite critical of these arguments, but there is a reasonable chance that they come up again and again, and that, given the right case, the right lawyers, the right justices, that a case based on this reading of the Comstock Act could be used to argue for and potentially even implement a national abortion ban through the federal courts without using Congress.

Rovner: Yeah. Mary Ziegler, who’s been on this podcast, who’s one of the top abortion history scholars and a law professor, has been talking about this a lot. You know, everybody is sort of talking about whether or not they can implement or pass a national abortion ban. She says, depending on how they interpret Comstock, there already is, in theory, a national abortion ban. And it wouldn’t just be pills. It would be anything that’s mailed that really has to do with abortion, right?

Ollstein: Yeah. I also just want to go back to the mifepristone case and note that there’s not just one; there’s, like, five — five that I that I know of, maybe even more. The main one that could decide the federal regulation at the FDA level of mifepristone; there are several groups of states saying, Hey, if there’s a federal ban, it shouldn’t apply to us; and then there are two lawsuits that are attempting to challenge state-level bans on the drugs as violating the rights either of doctors and patients or of the pharmaceutical companies. So there are so many different permutations and ways this could go. It’s not just, you know, an up or down vote.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s definitely a full-employment-for-lawyers decision.

Ollstein: And health care reporters.

Rovner: And health care reporters. Well, I want to talk about the administration a little bit. President Biden has been both praised by abortion rights supporters for his administration’s support of abortion rights and chided for his personal reluctance to talk about an issue he is clearly not very comfortable with. What has the administration done in this arena, besides everybody paying attention to what President Biden does or doesn’t say himself?

Raman: I would boil down what I guess the president has done has been the three executive orders that he’s done since the Dobbs decision. So we had two last year that were more focused on abortion and things that he was asking various agencies and departments to do there. And then most recently, last week, we had one that was focused on birth control and contraception, broadening accessibility there. And I think the trick here is that all of these points within the executive order are calling on the agencies and departments to consider doing this, consider doing that. And while some of those things have come to fruition — we’ve had, you know, the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] and the Department of Defense have changed their policies to kind of make access easier — we’ve also had certain things that have been outlined there not come out. We had in I think the first or second one last year that they had asked CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] to find ways to make it so that there could be, you know, an 1115 waiver for Medicaid programs to cover out-of-state patients. And states haven’t really jumped at that or figured out a way for that to work out. So it’s a mixed bag.

Luthra: I think another sort of interesting element — for everything the administration has done, tried to expand access to mifepristone in pharmacies, tried to use EMTALA [the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act], the emergency medication law, to help people get abortions when they are needed for life-threatening situations in hospitals, it feels like there is always a Republican response that is quite effective in, if not neutering, then quite weakening that. And we’ve seen that with the Texas attorney general, potentially someday soon former attorney general, suing to challenge the EMTALA regs that we’ve seen that in the —

Rovner: He’s being impeached, for those of you who have not kept up — that the Texas attorney general. So we’re waiting for the trial of that impeachment.

Luthra: Yeah, we’ve seen like Alice’s really great reporting on the efforts by Republican attorneys general, including in blue states, to limit access to mifepristone in pharmacies, right, sort of going directly against what the administration is trying to do and what it sort of gets to is: For everything that they try, it is hard to see in reality how much of an impact it will make and can make on the ground in expanding access to abortion.

Ollstein: Oh, yes. And we should say that there are, you know, progressive advocacy groups who are disappointed and think the administration has not tried everything it could be trying. And so, you know, the administration has been touting everything it’s doing. And like we have said, some of it has made an impact, particularly defending these policies in court and stopping them from being struck down. But there is a lot of frustration. You know, I’ve heard specific calls for more to be done through Medicaid, more to be done in terms of exploring whether abortion providers could operate on federal land, even in red states. There’s just a lot of areas, and this administration is pretty cautious. And, you know, we can see, because of all the legal challenges, why that is. An adverse legal ruling could be damaging going forward. But, you know, I do want to note that there are pro-abortion rights advocacy groups who are not satisfied with the level of effort from the Biden administration so far.

Rovner: Frustrated, I think, is the accurate word there. Well, let us move to Congress because that’s relevant to what we were just talking about. As we have discussed on this podcast many times, Congress is pretty much gridlocked on all issues involving reproductive health. There are not 60 votes in the Senate for anything on either side, but there’s been some action in Congress the last year, right, Sandhya?

Raman: Yeah, I would say 1) historically, there’s rarely much movement on abortion policy in Congress. It’s just someone bringing something up a lot for messaging. But I think the main thing that that has had an effect is [Republican] Sen. [Tommy] Tuberville from Alabama has been holding up Pentagon nominations over the Department of Defense’s abortion policy, which allows service members who are stationed somewhere where abortion is not legal to be able to take off time and travel somewhere to get that abortion. And this has been holding up over 250 nominations so far. It’s been a big issue given that, I think, there have been folks from either side and former defense officials have said this is a matter of national security, that we’re not able to get this done over one person.

Rovner: This is a big deal that’s been kind of flying under the radar for two or three months now, right?

Ollstein: They’re at a total impasse.

Raman: Yeah, I think that the latest is mainly that, you know, Sen. [Joni] Ernst [R-Iowa] does want to have a vote on this when the NDAA goes to the Senate floor.

Rovner: The defense authorization — the annual defense authorization bill.

Raman: Right.

Rovner: Yes.

Raman: To kind of have a vote on that and try to get that. But they’re at an impasse right now. And it’s kind of unusual. I mean, it’s something that — people have held up nominations, but I think this in particular is a pretty interesting one.

Rovner: Yeah, I know the secretary of defense is very upset about it. It really is a matter of national security and they really haven’t been able to work this out. You know, we know, as we mentioned, Congress can’t sort of do anything. There is not a supermajority to either tighten federal abortion restrictions or loosen them. But one of the things that might have happened and that anti-abortion legislators talked about early in the year were things to better support pregnant women or pregnant women who’ve then had children, and trying to support those children. Even things like Title X, like contraception, Head Start, expanded Medicaid for maternal health for a year. We actually haven’t seen very much of that happening either, have we?

Ollstein: No, we have not. I will say we have in some states; some states that are very conservative have — they say it’s specifically because of the elimination of abortion access — moved to have more funding for moms and babies and even contraception. And so you have seen that. But no, at the federal level, it is running right into this anxiety about debt and spending and not wanting to open the pocketbooks on that front. I also think it’s interesting that House Republicans have not really used their majority to vote on an abortion ban. In a sense, it’s kind of a free vote for them because it won’t become law. And it’s just interesting and speaks to the tricky politics that they haven’t even done a symbolic vote. Meanwhile, you’ve had Senate Democrats do a bunch of symbolic votes to try to make Republicans uncomfortable with the issue. But again, these are all just sort of show votes that are not going to become law.

Rovner: Yeah, somebody should total up the show votes at some point over the last 10 years. I bet it would be a lot.

Raman: I will say that, you know, the one thing that I will acknowledge on a federal level is that, you know, when we had the omnibus last year, they did make the 12-month postpartum Medicaid pilot coverage permanent. And I think that will be a big thing, given that so many states have so quickly adopted the pilot of that. So that would see something that that there can be an effect, but —

Rovner: But it is still optional. States don’t have to — I mean right now —

Raman: It is still optional.

Rovner: Standard Medicaid cuts off new moms after 60 days, is that right?

Raman: Yeah, But I mean, it’s hard. I mean, I think it’s A) kind of what Alice said with the funding and the fact that we’re working with less than we had before. But also, if you look at the language of a lot of the bills that have been introduced that kind of focus on some of these things, you know, whether it’s different things for new moms — a lot of it has language that will polarize the other side. I think that if you see some of the packages and bills that have been put out by Republicans, there’s funding or redirecting resources for crisis pregnancy resource centers, which, you know, Democrats are not in favor of given that they don’t support abortion. And then we also have, I think, a lot of the Democrats’ bills might not specifically carve out certain things. I think that they “butt heads” …[unintelligible] … I think you have to kind of water it down, the language. And we haven’t really seen something that kind of can appeal to everyone kind of come forward, and also that doesn’t cost money. And finding that happy medium is very difficult.

Rovner: And ever was. Well, Congress hasn’t been able to do very much, but state legislatures have been really busy, right? I mean, and it’s more than just, you know, bans, working on different variations of bans. We’ve seen some very, sort of, creative ideas, right?

Luthra: It’s been fascinating to see what’s happening on the state level. One thread I actually thought of during Sandhya’s remarks was the expansion of crisis pregnancy centers, in particular in states with abortion bans, right? Putting more state funding to support them, which, for a reminder, they not only don’t support abortion; many of them don’t actually employ qualified medical personnel and are not bound by HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act]. We have that lawsuit from this week where the woman said she went to a crisis pregnancy center, and they missed her ectopic pregnancy. So, quite dangerous. But beyond that, what’s really interesting is Republicans in state legislatures seem like they are really trying to figure out how to navigate these tricky abortion politics, and they’re not quite sure how to go about doing it, which is why we saw the six-week abortion ban pass in Florida and in South Carolina. And then we saw differences in other states, right? North Carolina did the 12-week ban, which is being litigated right now. And what clinics are actually more concerned about there is a requirement for two in-person visits separated by three days, which they say will just make the procedure unaffordable. We saw Nebraska do a 12-week ban as well, sort of concerned that six weeks appears too extreme now that voters are responding to abortion bans. And the other thing that is just really, really interesting is: We saw at the beginning of the year some pre-filing of bills around the fetal personhood movement, around ways to try and criminalize the morning-after pill or IUDs [intrauterine devices], trying to consider whether you make the person who gets an abortion liable herself. None of those have really taken off yet, and it seems that it’s because that is a bridge that, for many in the movement, is still too far — just this concern that then they would really have to say it is not just that we are trying to quote-unquote “protect the pregnant person,” but we actually think abortion is murder itself. And so I think that will be a really interesting battle within anti-abortion lawmakers, to see how that ends up in the coming years.

Rovner: And that’s a battle that goes back like a decade and a half now. They still aren’t quite there. I think the other thing that we saw a lot of that hasn’t really come to pass are bills to try to ban travel, to try to ban pregnant women from going to other states to obtain abortions, which strikes me as something — strikes many people as something that seems probably not constitutional, but not to say that they won’t try.

Ollstein: Yeah, I think we’ve seen Idaho go the furthest down this road. Missouri was also sort of exploring it, putting a toe in the water, but it never really went anywhere. But I totally agree, Julie. I think there was so much anxiety over this past year about red states trying to reach across their borders in different ways to police abortion, whether it’s suing doctors or trying to ban travel or obtaining people’s medical records or — there was just a lot of anxiety, and you saw that reflected in what blue states passed. Blue states passed a lot of protections to stop those sort of cross-border prosecutions. But we haven’t seen the cross-border prosecutions. That hasn’t really come to fruition yet and may or may not going forward. So it’s interesting because a lot of fears of what would happen when Roe fell have played out exactly as predicted and this is one that kind of hasn’t. Two other really quick state-level things that I wanted to flag that I just think are interesting and are examples of conservatives trying to get very creative and not do just a straightforward ban. I would flag Utah is trying to ban abortion by banning abortion clinics and saying it has to only take place in hospitals. Twist: No hospital in the state will do abortions because they’re religiously affiliated. So that’s sort of a total ban in practicality, if not in name. That’s been enjoined in court. And then in Wyoming, they’ve tried to ban the pills. And pills are what people use because there are no facilities that perform abortions. And so these are ways they’re trying to get creative and do it in different ways. That has been enjoined, too. So we’ll see. But it’s very like, throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

Rovner: And I would add to that, although I think we haven’t really talked about it on the podcast — is some cities now trying to create bans. So even within blue states there would be bans in red cities, which is another complicated legal thing.

Raman: I looked up some Guttmacher Institute data and we had fewer abortion laws adopted last year compared to the year before. It was 50 last year versus 108 the year before. And, you know, the Dobbs decision dropped after some of these states had gone out of session. But the one thing that I thought — that resonated with me because, you know, A) a lot of these states, maybe they’ve implemented wider bans or they were able to bring back older laws, but it was a drop in the number that we were seeing. And the thing that I have kind of taken away from this year is that the states that we’ve been talking about before — you know, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida — that are implementing these, or trying to, much stronger abortion bans are the ones that have been kind of the safe havens, quote-unquote, since the news dropped, where if you live elsewhere in the South, you are trying to go to one of these states to get an abortion. So it’s kind of like a whack-a-mole and that these are the places that have been seeing an influx of patients, especially Florida, that, you know, these are — the cracking-down there to kind of minimize that.

Rovner: So, and to go back to what we said at the beginning, that just makes abortion more expensive for people who have to leave their own state to go somewhere else. Well, we’ve been kind of dancing around this a little bit. But one of the reasons that states have not done some of the things that we thought they might do is that voters have not reacted the way we expected or, I don’t know, the way some people expected. I mean, it’s been surprising. Somebody summarize for us what voters have done on this issue in the last year.

Ollstein: Every time voters have been able to weigh in directly, they have weighed in directly against restrictions and for protections — you know, broadly. Because of that, you have a lot more activists in states trying to set up these votes for later this year, next year, the following years. Every state has different rules around this, and some states don’t allow it at all. But because of just the sweep of the pro-abortion rights side last year in six states —

Rovner: Including some pretty red states like Kentucky and Kansas.

Ollstein: Including some very red states. Yeah, although, you know, it’s a good reminder that, you know, we think in terms of red state, blue state. But, you know, it’s really nuanced. I mean, Kansas has a Democratic governor. Kentucky has a Democratic governor. But, yes, these are states that voted for Trump, have an overwhelmingly Republican state legislature. So it’s how you look at things. But, yes, very conservative, very religious. And both the vote results, but also reporting, polling, focus groups, show that even people who self-identify as very conservative and even personally anti-abortion, a lot of them are not supportive of laws that are this restrictive and think that this should be someone’s personal choice. So I think that’s why these campaigns that really had a conservative-friendly message of getting the government out of your personal business were so successful.

Luthra: And what’s been striking has been seeing the polling just in general around abortion rights. It’s been fairly stagnant up until last year. And basically every big polling organization has seen a shift, and voters are more supportive now of abortion rights than they were before, more opposed in some cases, even to, like, the second-trimester bans, which in the past were a bit more popular, and also in some cases more likely to place this as a high priority for voting. And that will be really interesting to see, especially next year, when we have more abortion rights ballot initiatives, as Alice mentioned, but also more candidates, including the president, running on abortion specifically, and seeing whether this particular issue does influence voters to become, in particular, more Democratic than they otherwise might have been.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s funny; abortion has been a big voting issue for the anti-abortion movement for years, which is how they got to this point basically. It has not been a huge issue for those who support abortion rights because a lot of people thought Roe would never go away, so they didn’t need to vote on it. And I think that’s going to be sort of a big realization. And next year is going to be the first presidential election since Roe went away. Before we leave the states, I would flag, though, the fact that, Alice, you were saying that because of the success of some of these state ballot initiatives, there are other states that are trying to do it, but there are also efforts to stop states that are trying to do it. I’m thinking mostly of Ohio and Missouri, in particular, which has a bizarre fight going on.

Ollstein: Yeah, absolutely. And those are the most immediate ones. But lots of red states took up bills this year to make direct ballot initiatives harder in lots of different ways — either, you know, raising the number of signatures that need to be collected, having weird geographical requirements for where the signatures are collected, and then the main one, which is in play in Ohio, is this question of requiring a supermajority vote to pass instead of just a bare majority. And so Ohio Republican legislators are setting up this August special vote on whether to raise the threshold from 50 to 60% to approve a ballot initiative. And they have been on the record about this specifically aimed at making sure the vote to restore abortion access in the state can’t pass in the fall. And then in Missouri, there’s all sorts of different things in play, some weird stuff, but —

Rovner: I think I can explain Missouri. The state attorney general is trying to make the state auditor change his estimate of how much it would cost if they were to pass this ballot measure expanding abortion access. And I think that the state auditor has said it would cost something like $51,000 or $51 million and that the state attorney general wants to make him increase that by a factor of 10 or a hundred. I mean, there’s just this huge fight. And of course, that would have to go on the ballot measure. So if the anti-abortion attorney general thinks if people go to the polls and see that this is going to cost millions or hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, they’re less likely to vote for it. And so that fight sort of continues. And I believe it has not been resolved yet.

Raman: And they’re both from the same party, which I think just makes it more interesting.

Rovner: Yeah. But you know, this is the first time I can remember a fight, a big important fight, between a state auditor and a state attorney general. I want to talk a little bit about what’s happened to doctors and other health professionals, because they’re kind of caught in the middle here. I mean, they had not been — I’ve written at length about the AMA [American Medical Association]’s sort of checkered history of trying to be on every single side of this issue over the years. But now we’re seeing doctors put in some pretty hairy positions, right?

Luthra: One thing I’ve been really struck by is talking to a lot of — and this is especially doctors, but true probably of all health professionals, is this idea that they didn’t have to take a position on abortion before, so many of them simply didn’t. They were happy to sort of think of it in a silo separate from the rest of their jobs. And that was because, like you said, Julie, they weren’t concerned about losing Roe. And now that we’re in this world, many of them have been really stunned to see what the consequences are, and a lot have described to me this feeling of being sort of called to political activism that they did not expect, did not train for, it’s not the job that they have — but being really pushed to talk about abortion in a way they otherwise wouldn’t have. And what we’ve also seen, of course, is many moving from states that have bans on abortion. Many of those states that have bans on abortion are also passing bans on gender-affirming care for minors, which puts even more doctors, nurses, med students, residents in a bind. We should also note that the health care workforce is a majority woman workforce, and so many of them feel personally affected by these laws as well and are factoring that in their decisions as to whether to practice. And it’s still quite early to say what the implications will be. But there is a lot of real concern in these states that already were these, you know, lower-health-care-access states, especially in rural areas, losing even more health care professionals because of the bans they’ve put in place.

Ollstein: Doctors are becoming more vocal. I think a lot of players in the medical space that haven’t been as vocal about this are weighing in, telling state legislatures, “You’re putting our members in danger.” And so I completely agree. And I think that a lot of this anxiety seems to be from the medical community, like, If we accept this intrusion into our work, what’s next? What else will state legislators who are not doctors try to dictate that we can and can’t do? And so there’s sort of a sense of, If we don’t stand up to this, we’re sort of opening the door to a lot more intrusion into the patient-provider relationship.

Raman: So I have done a lot of looking at the long-term. I’ve been following, since last year, kind of the steps with workforce because I think, for context, we’re expected in a few years to have a shortage of obstetrics providers already, given a higher percentage of women of reproductive age and a lot of folks just leaving that workforce altogether. And I have been kind of curious how this is going to affect that. And I think some of the takeaways, I think, to echo Shefali, is A) it’s early. So it’s hard to go through the data and see what is because of this, what’s because of that. But I think one thing that I’ve noticed is that it hasn’t been just obstetrics or just emergency room or family medicine. I’ve been hearing from folks in all sorts of specialties, even if they aren’t even related to this, because wherever you do your training, it might affect your family or yourself. And that is something that I’ve heard come up — you know, harassment and is there options for themselves? And I think also just unclarity in the laws. I’ve heard multiple either folks training to be physicians or who have just become them say that they didn’t go to school to become a lawyer; they went to school to become a health care provider. And having to have that intermediary and consult the legal team of the hospital in between is just very difficult for them to do their care. But datawise, I think that we had, according to the AMA, a drop in residency apps for obstetrics and gynecology, and it was higher in the more restrictive states, but it also dropped some in the states that are more progressive on abortion, like it dropped in California. So it’s kind of hard to tell so soon what that could mean. But I think if you look at what happened in Texas, which had pretty flat numbers before SB 8, and then they had a huge drop after that law was implemented and who was applying to go there, and they have the third most programs in the country — like, that can provide some clues that we could see kind of further on as we keep looking. But yeah, a lot of it’s not going to be felt for a while.

Rovner: I think two really important points there, though, is one is that it’s not just restricted to the specialties that we would think because, as you point out, health care, particularly graduating medical students, are now majority women and they are mostly of childbearing age, so they are concerned about themselves and their families. And if they’re men, they likely have partners, so they’re still considered worried about themselves and their families. So it can be kind of a big deal. And the other one, of course, is that where medical students train after medical school, where they do their residencies, is very, very indicative of where they’re going to end up practicing. So if you don’t have people training in those states, you’re going to have fewer people practicing in those states. And that we do know from way, way, way back. So I think that’s also going to be an issue going forward. Well, we are running out of time, but I wanted to go around the table once really quickly and say you’ve all been obviously very steeped in this for the last year. I want everybody to tell us sort of the one thing that’s going to stick with you most from reporting over the course of this first year without Roe. Shefali, why don’t you start?

Luthra: I think the thing that will stick with me this year and probably the rest of my life is hearing from the people who have tried to get abortions in states where they cannot, whether that was because of a wanted pregnancy that went wrong, whether that was to save their own lives, whether that was because they already had two kids and didn’t want another or they didn’t want any kids. And just the themes that you keep hearing from them, right? The anger; the betrayal; the feeling like they are less of a person because they can’t get this in their home state; the financial distress that they go through; and, in many cases, the isolation, because they have no one they can talk to about this. It’s really, really striking to hear those stories. And I think they’re some of the most important things that we as reporters can hear about and that our readers can see and internalize and think about when they conceive of what abortion bans mean.

Rovner: Sandhya.

Raman: I think the thing that sticks with me is just really how far the reverberations from this decision have gone. You know, what really comes to mind is last year when I was at an international family planning conference, this woman from a Kenyan nonprofit said to me, “You know, when the U.S. sneezes, the rest of the countries catch a cold.” And I think that was really striking and just seeing how far a U.S. court case can be felt around the world, whether it is countries that have made more progressive abortion laws or more restrictive abortion laws, kind of in the light of something the U.S. does, and just kind of how something that I think is easy to think of as just here, how that can have an effect on other leaders and the people there, or just countries that rely on the U.S. for a variety of things. So that, that really sticks with me.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: Yeah. In traveling, it’s just been really striking to see how abortion bans have had these knock-on effects and limited the availability of other kinds of health care, whether that’s by putting clinics out of business or causing an exodus of doctors and residents and medical students from particular parts of the country that already were experiencing shortages and really just making these medical deserts, and particularly maternal health deserts, that were already there even worse, and just meeting people who were telling me, “I was told it would be, you know, a four-month wait just to get an IUD.” You know, these are people who are trying to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. And there’s just nowhere for them to go in a lot of places in the country, more than we think. And so just looking at people who are not pregnant, are not seeking an abortion, are also being hit by these legal changes.

Rovner: I’ve been struck just by how accurate a lot of the predictions were about what would happen if Roe went down. I mean, there were things that were unexpected. But I think most of the things, particularly the red state, blue state, have and have-not, have been exactly what people predicted would happen. All right. It is time for our extra credit segment. That’s normally when we each recommend a story we read this week that we think you should read too. This week, though, I’ve asked the panelists to choose their favorite story about reproductive health that they have written in this past year. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Sandhya, why don’t you go first this week?

Raman: So the story I picked is called “Conservatives Use Abortion Strategies in Fight Over Trans Care,” and I wrote this for Roll Call in February. What I did was kind of take a look at how we got to the Dobbs decision in the first place, is after the passing of legislation and the litigation and a number of state abortion laws and how those parallels are pretty striking to what’s been happening with trans health right now that has been really ramping up as a political messaging issue. And so, you know, in some cases it’s been very clear, where they’ve been putting language about abortion and gender-affirming care in the same bill, or restrictions there. But I think there are a lot of parallels that I was kind of finding in that, you know, starting with minors and then scaling up in restrictions or looking at science that’s odds with major medical organizations or messaging on safety or looking to penalize doctors or just, like, amplifying very rare cases of regret — that kind of thing. And so looking forward, that’s something that just keeps resonating with me as something to watch, that the abortion blueprint is not unique. It’s going to be there for other things.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: So I chose the piece I did from the ground in Kansas when they voted. They were the first state where voters could weigh in directly on abortion access post-Roe, and it just revealed so many things that continue to be true for the states that are voting on this. It was just such a clear preview of what was to come. It was the flood of out-of-state money and staff on both sides. It was just how heated it got on the ground. It was the attempts by Republican state legislatures to structurally make it harder for folks to vote and more likely for things to go their way. And yet it was a blowout vote for the pro-abortion rights side in the end. And that was just such a preview of what was to come on both sides, and just being there on the ground and being able to see this and to see how people were feeling when the Dobbs decision was so fresh will really stay with me.

Rovner: Shefali.

Luthra: My story published in May at the anniversary of the Dobbs leak. It’s called “93 Days: The Summer America Lost Roe v. Wade.” And for this, it was an oral history that my editor and I had talked about. And we spent a few months working on it, talking to a dozen different folks about what it was like to live through last summer, from the Dobbs leak to the Dobbs decision up to the Kansas election. And there are stories from doctors; from politicians; from activists; people who organized on the Kansas abortion rights initiative; lawmakers who talked about their experience of learning of the decision; Kristan Hawkins, the head of Students for Life. But the people whose stories I think are most worth reading are the, I think it was three women I spoke to, who talked about their experiences navigating abortion, including one woman who was trying to schedule her abortion. She was in line at Disney when the decision came out and she found out her appointment had been canceled. She was never able to get another one and she had a baby soon afterward. There was another who was taking her medication abortion pills at home when the decision was revealed, and she wasn’t sure if she was breaking the law by taking misoprostol in her bathtub. And I think these stories just — they really cemented for me that this is not only the world that we live in, but that these are the real-life implications on the people who are affected. And I just always really love getting a chance to tell those stories.

Rovner: Well, my story is a piece that I wrote last July, so almost a year ago, called “Three Things About the Abortion Debate That Many People Get Wrong.” And one myth, of course, is that abortion bans and restrictions would only affect people seeking abortions, which we now know in sometimes horrifying detail is not true. Women with very wanted pregnancies gone wrong are also caught in the crossfire, and, as we said, forced to travel long distances or wait until they are literally at death’s door to get needed care. But it’s worth reminding people about the other two myths. One is that Congress could have codified abortion rights at any time since Roe but never really tried very hard, and the other one that Congress could have acted in 2022 — the end of last year — when Democrats still had majorities, albeit very tiny ones, in the House and Senate. In fact, Congress never had the votes to enshrine abortion rights for the entire life of Roe. There were several attempts to do that, many of which I personally covered. And to those who think Congress could have done something last year, I ask, “Have you met Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema?” That wasn’t going to happen either. All right. Well, 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 @jrovner.

Rovner: Shefali?

Luthra: I’m @shefalil.

Rovner: Sandhya.

Raman: I’m @SandhyaWrites.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein.

Rovner: We are taking next week off for the Fourth of July holiday, so we will be back in your feed with our regular news update on July 13. 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).

On May 16, the FTC sued to block the merger of drugmakers Amgen and Horizon Therapeutics, saying the tangled web of drug industry deal-making would enable Amgen to leverage the monopoly power of two top Horizon drugs that have no rivals.

In its lawsuit, the FTC said that if it allowed Amgen’s $27.8 billion purchase to go through, Amgen could pressure the companies that manage access to prescription drugs — pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs — to boost the two extremely expensive Horizon products in a way that would inhibit any competition.

The suit, the first time since 2009 that the FTC has tried to block a drug company merger, reflects Chair Lina Khan’s strong interest in antitrust action. In announcing the suit, the agency said that by fighting monopoly powers it aimed to tame prices and improve patients’ access to cheaper products.

The FTC’s action is a “shot across the bow for the pharmaceutical industry,” said Robin Feldman, a professor and drug industry expert at the University of California College of the Law-San Francisco. David Balto, a former FTC official and attorney who fought the 2019 Bristol-Myers Squibb-Celgene and 2020 AbbVie-Allergan mergers, said FTC’s action was long overdue.

The Horizon-Amgen merger would “cost consumers in higher prices, less choice, and innovation,” he said. “The merger would have given Amgen even more tools to exploit consumers and harm competition.”

The FTC also announced an expansion of a yearlong investigation of the PBMs, saying it was looking at two giant drug-purchasing companies, Ascent Health Services and Zinc Health Services. Critics claim the PBMs set up these companies to conceal profits.

When Amgen announced its purchase of Horizon in December — the biggest biopharma transaction in 2022 — it showed particular interest in Horizon’s drugs for thyroid eye disease (Tepezza) and severe gout (Krystexxa), for which the company was charging up to $350,000 and $650,000, respectively, for a year of treatment. The complaint said the merger would disadvantage biotech rivals that have similar products in advanced clinical testing.

Amgen could promote the Horizon drugs through “cross-market bundling,” the FTC said. That means requiring PBMs to promote some of Amgen’s less popular drugs — the Horizon products, in this case — in exchange for Amgen offering the PBMs large rebates for its blockbusters. Amgen has nine drugs that each earned more than $1 billion last year, according to the complaint, the most popular being Enbrel, which treats rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases.

The three biggest PBMs negotiate prices and access to 80% of prescription drugs in the U.S., giving them enormous bargaining power. Their ability to influence which drugs Americans can get, and at what price, enables the PBMs to obtain billions in rebates from drug manufacturers.

“The prospect that Amgen could leverage its portfolio of blockbuster drugs to gain advantages over potential rivals is not hypothetical,” the FTC complaint states. “Amgen has deployed this very strategy to extract favorable terms from payers to protect sales of Amgen’s struggling drugs.”

The complaint noted that biotech Regeneron last year sued Amgen, alleging that the latter’s rebating strategy harmed Regeneron’s ability to sell its competing cholesterol drug, Praluent. Amgen’s Repatha generated $1.3 billion in global revenue in 2022.

It “may be effectively impossible” for smaller rivals to “match the value of bundled rebates that Amgen would be able to offer” as it leverages placement of the Horizon drugs on health plan formularies, the complaint states.

Business analysts were skeptical that the FTC action would succeed. Until now the commission and the Department of Justice have shied away from challenging pharmaceutical mergers, a precedent that will be hard to overcome.

Research on the impact of mergers has shown that they often benefit shareholders by increasing stock prices, but hurt innovation in drug development by trimming research projects and staffing.

Waves of consolidation shrank the field of leading pharma companies from 60 to 10 from 1995 to 2015. Most of the mergers in recent years have involved “big fish buying up lots of little fish,” such as biotech companies with promising drugs, Feldman said.

The giant Amgen-Horizon merger is an obvious exception, and therefore a good opportunity for the FTC to demonstrate a “theory of harm” around drug industry bundling maneuvers with PBMs, said Aaron Glick, a mergers analyst with Cowen & Co.

But that doesn’t mean the FTC will win.

Amgen may or may not engage in anti-competitive practices, but “a separate question is, how does this lawsuit fit under current antitrust laws and precedent?” Glick said. “The way the law is set up today, it seems unlikely it will hold up in court.”

The FTC’s argument about Amgen’s behavior with Horizon products is hypothetical. The pending Regeneron suit against Amgen, as well as other, successful lawsuits, suggests that rules are in place to suppress this kind of anti-competitive behavior when it occurs, Glick said.

The judge presiding over the case in U.S. District Court in Illinois is John Kness, who was appointed by then-President Donald Trump and is a former member of the Federalist Society, whose membership tends to be skeptical of antitrust efforts. The case is likely to be settled by Dec. 12, the deadline for the merger to go through under current terms.

Amgen sought to undercut the government’s case by agreeing not to bundle Horizon products in future negotiations with pharmacy benefit managers. That promise, while hard to enforce, might get a sympathetic hearing in court, Glick said.

Still, even a loss would enable the FTC to shed light on a problem in the industry and what it sees as a deficiency in antitrust laws that it wants Congress to correct, he said.

The day after suing to stop the merger, the FTC announced it was pushing further into an investigation of pharmacy benefit managers that it began last June. The agency demanded information from Ascent and Zinc, the two so-called rebate aggregators — drug purchasing organizations set up by PBMs Express Scripts and CVS Caremark.

At a May 10 hearing, Eli Lilly & Co. CEO Dave Ricks said that most of the $8 billion in rebate checks his company paid last year went to rebate aggregators, rather than to the PBMs directly. A “big chunk” of the $8 billion went overseas, he said. Ascent is based in Switzerland, while Emisar Pharma Services, an aggregator established by PBM OptumRx, is headquartered in Ireland. Zinc Health Services is registered in the U.S.

Critics say the aggregators enable PBMs to obscure the size and destination of rebates and other fees they charge as intermediaries in the drug business.

The PBMs say their efforts reduce prices at the pharmaceutical counter. Testimony in Congress and in FTC hearings over the past year indicate that, at least in some instances, they actually increase them.

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).

El 16 de mayo, la FTC interpuso una demanda para bloquear la fusión de las farmacéuticas Amgen y Horizon Therapeutics, alegando que la enmarañada red de acuerdos de la industria  permitiría a Amgen aprovechar el poder monopolístico de dos de los principales medicamentos de Horizon que no tienen rivales.

En su demanda, la FTC alegó que si se permitía la compra que pretende Amgen por $27,800 millones, Amgen podría presionar a las empresas que gestionan el acceso a los medicamentos con receta —los gestores de beneficios de farmacia, o PBM— para que impongan los dos productos extremadamente caros de Horizon de una manera que eliminaría cualquier competencia.

Es la primera vez desde 2009 que la FTC intenta bloquear una fusión de empresas farmacéuticas, y esta demanda refleja el gran interés de la presidenta Lina Khan por las medidas antimonopolio. Al anunciar la demanda, la agencia declaró que al luchar contra los poderes monopolísticos pretendía controlar los precios y mejorar el acceso de los pacientes a productos más baratos.

Para Robin Feldman, profesor y experto en la industria farmacéutica de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de California en San Francisco, la actuación de la FTC es “un golpe frontal a la industria farmacéutica”. David Balto, ex funcionario de la FTC y abogado que luchó contra las fusiones Bristol-Myers Squibb-Celgene en 2019 y AbbVie-Allergan en 2020, dijo que la acción de la FTC era necesaria desde hace mucho tiempo.

La fusión Horizon-Amgen “costaría a los consumidores precios más altos, menos opciones e innovación”, señaló. “La fusión habría dado a Amgen aún más herramientas para explotar a los consumidores y dañar la competencia”.

La FTC también anunció la ampliación de una investigación de un año sobre los PBM, indicando que se investigaban dos gigantescas empresas de compra de medicamentos, Ascent Health Services y Zinc Health Services. Los críticos afirman que los PBM crearon estas empresas para ocultar beneficios.

Cuando Amgen anunció la compra de Horizon en diciembre —la mayor operación biofarmacéutica de 2022— mostró especial interés por los medicamentos de Horizon para la enfermedad tiroidea ocular (Tepezza) y la gota grave (Krystexxa), por los que la empresa cobraba hasta $350,000 y $650,000, respectivamente, por un año de tratamiento. Según la demanda, la fusión perjudicaría a rivales biotecnológicos que tienen productos similares en fase avanzada de pruebas clínicas.

Según la FTC, Amgen podría promocionar los fármacos de Horizon a través de la “venta cruzada”. Esto significa exigir a los PBM que promocionen algunos de los medicamentos menos populares de Amgen —los productos Horizon, en este caso— a cambio de que Amgen ofrezca a los PBM grandes descuentos por sus superventas. Según la denuncia, Amgen tiene nueve medicamentos que el año pasado generaron más de $1,000 millones cada uno. El más popular es Enbrel, que trata la artritis reumatoide y otras enfermedades.

Los tres mayores PBM negocian los precios y el acceso al 80% de los medicamentos recetados en Estados Unidos, lo que les confiere un enorme poder de negociación. Su capacidad para influir en los medicamentos a los que tienen acceso los estadounidenses, y a qué precio, les permite obtener miles de millones en descuentos de los fabricantes.

“La posibilidad de que Amgen pudiera aprovechar su cartera de medicamentos superventas para obtener ventajas sobre sus rivales potenciales no es hipotética”, afirma la denuncia de la FTC. “Amgen ha desplegado esta misma estrategia para conseguir condiciones favorables de los pagadores y proteger así las ventas de los medicamentos de Amgen en dificultades”.

La denuncia señaló que la biotecnológica Regeneron demandó el año pasado a Amgen, alegando que la estrategia de reembolso de esta última perjudicó la capacidad de Regeneron para vender su medicamento competidor contra el colesterol, Praluent. Repatha, de Amgen, generó unos ingresos mundiales de $1,300 millones en 2022.

Según la demanda, “puede resultar completamente imposible” para los rivales más pequeños “igualar el valor de los reembolsos agrupados que Amgen podría ofrecer”, ya que aprovecha la colocación de los medicamentos de Horizon en los formularios de los planes de salud.

Los analistas de la industria se mostraron escépticos sobre el éxito de la acción de la FTC. Hasta ahora, la Comisión y el Departamento de Justicia han evitado cuestionar las fusiones farmacéuticas, un precedente difícil de superar.

Las investigaciones sobre el impacto de las fusiones han demostrado que a menudo benefician a los accionistas al aumentar el precio de las acciones; pero perjudican la innovación en el desarrollo de fármacos al recortar los proyectos de investigación y el personal.

Las olas de consolidación redujeron el número de empresas farmacéuticas líderes de 60 a 10 entre 1995 y 2015. Según Feldman, la mayoría de las fusiones de los últimos años se han producido entre “peces gordos que adquieren muchos peces pequeños”, como empresas de biotecnología con fármacos prometedores.

La gigantesca fusión Amgen-Horizon es una excepción obvia y, por tanto, una buena oportunidad para que la FTC demuestre la “teoría del daño” en las maniobras de consolidación de la industria farmacéutica con los PBM, dijo Aaron Glick, analista de fusiones de Cowen & Co.

Pero eso no significa que la FTC vaya a ganar.

Amgen puede incurrir o no en prácticas anticompetitivas, pero “otra cuestión es cómo encaja esta demanda en las leyes antimonopolio y los precedentes actuales”, señaló Glick. “Tal y como está configurada la ley hoy, parece poco probable que se sostenga en los tribunales”.

El argumento de la FTC sobre el comportamiento de Amgen con los productos Horizon es hipotético. La demanda pendiente de Regeneron contra Amgen, así como otras demandas que han prosperado, sugiere que existen normas para suprimir este tipo de comportamiento anticompetitivo cuando se produce, añadió Glick.

El juez que preside el caso en el Tribunal de Distrito de Estados Unidos en Illinois es John Kness, quien fue nombrado por el entonces presidente Donald Trump y es un ex miembro de la Federalist Society, cuyos miembros tienden a ser escépticos sobre los esfuerzos antimonopolio.

Es probable que el caso se resuelva antes del 12 de diciembre, fecha límite para que la fusión se lleve a cabo en los términos actuales.

Amgen trató de socavar los argumentos del Gobierno comprometiéndose a no agrupar los productos de Horizon en futuras negociaciones con los gestores de beneficios farmacéuticos (PBM). Esta promesa, aunque difícil de hacer cumplir, podría obtener una audiencia favorable en corte, apuntó Glick.

Sin embargo, incluso una derrota permitiría a la FTC arrojar luz sobre un problema en la industria y lo que considera una deficiencia en las leyes antimonopolio que quiere que el Congreso corrija, explicó.

Al día siguiente de ir a corte para detener la fusión, la FTC anunció que profundizaba en una investigación sobre los gestores de beneficios farmacéuticos que inició el pasado mes de junio. La agencia solicitó información a Ascent y Zinc, los dos llamados agregadores de reembolsos, organizaciones de compra de medicamentos creadas por los PBM Express Scripts y CVS Caremark.

En una audiencia celebrada el 10 de mayo, el CEO de Eli Lilly & Co., Dave Ricks, afirmó que la mayor parte de los $8,000 millones en cheques de reembolso que su empresa pagó el año pasado fueron a parar a los agregadores de reembolsos, en lugar de directamente a los PBM. Una “gran parte” de los $8,000 millones fue a parar al extranjero, indicó Ricks. Ascent tiene su sede en Suiza, mientras que Emisar Pharma Services, un agregador establecido por PBM OptumRx, tiene su sede en Irlanda. Zinc Health Services está registrada en Estados Unidos.

Los críticos afirman que los agregadores permiten a los PBM ocultar la cuantía y el destino de los reembolsos y otras comisiones que cobran como intermediarios en el negocio de los medicamentos.

Por su parte, los PBM aseguran que sus esfuerzos reducen los precios en el mostrador de la farmacia. Los testimonios en el Congreso y en las audiencias de la FTC del año pasado indican que, al menos en algunos casos, en realidad los aumentan.

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 fate of the abortion pill mifepristone remains in jeopardy, as an appellate court panel during a hearing this week sounded sympathetic to a lower court’s ruling that the FDA should not have approved the drug more than two decades ago. No matter how the appeals court rules, the case seems headed for the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, in the partisan standoff over raising the nation’s debt ceiling, a key sticking point has emerged: whether to add a work requirement to the state-federal Medicaid program. Republicans are adamant about adding one; Democrats point out that, in the few states that have tried them, red tape has resulted in eligible people wrongly losing their health coverage.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post, and Victoria Knight of Axios.

Panelists

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories

Rachel Roubein
The Washington Post

@rachel_roubein

Read Rachel's stories

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Hopes among abortion rights advocates for continued access to mifepristone dimmed as the three judges on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals signaled they are skeptical of the FDA’s decades-old approval of the drug and of the Biden administration’s arguments defending it. Lawyers debated whether the Texas doctors challenging the drug had been harmed by it and thus had standing to sue. If the original ruling effectively revoking the drug’s approval is allowed to stand, the case could open the door to future legal challenges to the approval of controversial drugs.
• Two more states in the South are moving to restrict abortion, further cutting access to the procedure in the region. In North Carolina, a new Republican supermajority in the state legislature enabled the passage this week of a new, 12-week ban, as lawmakers in South Carolina consider a six-week ban.
• In Congress, the top Senate Republican said he will not back one senator’s months-long effort to hold up Pentagon nominations over a policy that supports troops and their dependents who must travel to other states to obtain an abortion.
• Envision Healthcare — which spent big in 2019 to fight legislation prohibiting some surprise medical bills — has filed for bankruptcy protection more than a year after the law took effect and cut into its bottom line. But a federal lawsuit from a group of emergency room physicians against Envision may move forward. The lawsuit claims the private equity-backed company is in violation of a California law banning corporate control of medical practices, and it could carry major consequences for the growing number of practices backed by private equity firms across the country.
• Monica Bertagnolli has been nominated to lead the National Institutes of Health. Currently the director of the National Cancer Institute, she will need to be confirmed by the Senate, which hasn’t confirmed an NIH chief since before the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ stewardship of a key health committee is causing delays on even bipartisan efforts.

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 “A 150-Year-Old Law Could Help Determine the Fate of U.S. Abortion Access,” by Dan Diamond and Ann E. Marimow.

Victoria Knight: The New York Times’ “World Health Organization Warns Against Using Artificial Sweeteners,” by April Rubin.

Rachel Roubein: CBS News’ “Thousands Face Medicaid Whiplash in South Dakota and North Carolina,” by Arielle Zionts of KFF Health News.

Sandhya Raman: CQ Roll Call’s “A Year After Dobbs Leak, Democrats Still See Abortion Driving 2024 Voters,” by Mary Ellen McIntire and Daniela Altimari.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

KFF Health News’ “ER Doctors Vow to Pursue Case Against Envision Despite Bankruptcy,” by Bernard J. Wolfson.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Abortion Pill Goes Back to Court

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’

Episode Title: The Abortion Pill Goes Back to Court

Episode Number: 298

Published: May 18, 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 at KFF Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, May 18, 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 Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Rachel Roubein: Hi. Thanks for having me.

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios.

Victoria Knight: Hi. Good morning.

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Hi, and good morning, everyone.

Rovner: Lots and lots of health news this week, so we will dive right in. We’re going to start with abortion because there is so much breaking news on that front. On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans held a hearing on the Biden administration’s appeal of a Texas ruling that the FDA was wrong when it approved the abortion pill mifepristone more than 22 years ago. The panel, which was randomly chosen from an already pretty conservative slate there in the 5th Circuit, appeared to be even more anti-abortion than most of the judges on that bench. So, Sandhya, you listened to this whole thing. What, if anything, did we glean from this hearing?

Raman: I think we gleaned a lot of things and a lot of things I think we have predicted from the start. I think going into this, looking at the various judges’ records, they have ruled on anti-abortion cases in the past in the favor of that. You take that in with a grain of salt. And from watching the arguments, it seemed like they were fairly skeptical of the challenge and FDA’s approval of mifepristone and the subsequent regulations. You could kind of see through the questioning the kinds of things that they were asking and just pretty skeptical of just a lot of the things that were being said by DOJ [the Department of Justice] and by Danco there yesterday. So —

Rovner: Yeah, we should say that the lawyer for the FDA had one sort of round of presentation and questions. And then the lawyer from Danco, the company that makes mifepristone, had another. And they were pretty tough on both of them.

Raman: Yeah, and I thought it was interesting because when we were listening to the arguments, the DOJ lawyer and the Danco lawyer were kind of arguing a lot of the time just that there shouldn’t be standing, that there isn’t necessarily proof in any of the filings that any of the doctors that that were suing have really had harm due to the FDA’s role. It was kind of down the road. I think one thing that Harrington, the judge for the DOJ, had said, that was the FDA approving a drug does not mean that anyone has to prescribe it, it does not mean anyone has to take it, that the fact that if you were treating someone after the fact, that’s a few steps down the line. And so that was kind of like a messaging thing that they were doing kind of over and over again. And then when we got to the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the conservative doctors, Erin Hawley had said, you know, they are affected both physically and she said emotionally, which was interesting, kind of looking at that. And so it’ll depend on how the judges rule. I think that there were definitely some signs throughout the arguments about this not being as unprecedented and that the FDA is not untouchable in terms of the courts weighing in on regulation.

Rovner: If you were just listening to it, you didn’t sort of know all of this. And remember, these were two Trump-appointed judges and a George W. Bush-appointed judge who has a history of ruling in favor of anti-abortion efforts. But they were saying that, “Well, people sue the FDA all the time. You know, what’s the difference here?” Well, the difference here is nobody has ever sued the FDA saying that they were wrong to approve something 20 years ago. Nobody’s ever tried to get a drug taken off the market that way. There’s obviously lots of litigation against the FDA for the way it does some of its thing. I mean, it’s often little things and then people sue each other with the FDA caught in the middle — drugmakers and lots of patent suits. I was surprised that the appeals court judges took issue with what everybody I think acknowledges is a correct claim that this is unprecedented and this could open the door to other challenges to other drugs for any reason — you know, someone doesn’t like them. I mean, these doctors are not saying that they’ve prescribed this drug and women have taken it and had bad reactions. They’re saying that possibly, if someone takes it and has a bad reaction, that they would have to treat that person and that that would harm their conscience, even though, as the lawyers made it clear, no one has ever forced these doctors to take care of anyone against their conscience because there are already laws that protect against that. So it was very roundabout in a lot of ways.

Raman: I think one thing that they had mentioned was that, you know, some of the cases cited in the filings were, you know, someone had taken an imported version of a mifepristone, not the one that Danco made, and then someone else had been recommended not to take the drug but still took the drug and then had side effects related to that. But there is another thing that kind of stuck out to me, was when Judge [James] Ho had asked would the FDA adhere to whatever the final court decision was? And that was a little striking to me. And then the FDA had said, you know, we will. And they cited that they had signed an affidavit last year saying that they’re going to agree to whatever the final decision is. But there were a lot of parts of the case that were just very unusual compared to the other cases that I have watched on this or any other part of health care, I think.

Rovner: Although in fairness to the judges, I mean, there was — a lot of legal experts were saying that the FDA does have enforcement authority to determine what it’s going to enforce and what it isn’t. And Justice [Samuel] Alito, when he actually challenged the Supreme Court’s stay of the original ruling — Justice Alito questioned about whether FDA would even follow if this drug was deemed unapproved. So that’s at least been coming up as a discussion. Let’s move on because it could be weeks or even months before we hear back from this panel, and we will obviously keep watching it. There’s been plenty of action in the states, too, this week — not that surprising because it’s May and lots of state legislatures are wrapping up their sessions for the year. But we should point out that particularly North and South Carolina are acting on abortion because they’ve been two of the last states in the South where abortion had remained both legal and pretty much broadly available. That’s changing as of this week, though, isn’t it?

Roubein: That’s changing in North Carolina, for sure, after this week. The Republicans there have supermajorities as of April; a Democrat in the House switched to the Republican Party. And what they did there is they overrode a veto from Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper. And this new bill, which the main provisions go into effect July 1, will restrict abortions at 12 weeks in pregnancy. And now in South Carolina, it’s still a little bit to be determined. The House passed a bill last night which would restrict abortions after fetal cardiac activity’s detected — roughly six weeks. Now they’re sending that bill back to the Senate, which had already passed it. But they made some changes. And it’s not clear whether some of the Republican female senators who oppose a near-total ban will be in favor of these changes. So that one’s a bit up in the air.

Rovner: And obviously, the 12 weeks in North Carolina is going to be important because there are a lot of women coming from other states now to North Carolina and clinics are getting backed up. It is a time thing for women to sort of be able to get themselves together, often get child care, get time off from a job, have to find a hotel in most cases, and go to another state. So it’s going to turn out to be an issue.

Roubein: I think one of the provisions abortion rights groups are pointing to there is, because this is a 12-week ban, so roughly 90% of abortions are allowed to continue, but what Democrats really pointed out was that the bill requires an in-person visit 72 hours before obtaining an abortion. So that could kind of restrict people, as you mentioned, Julie, from being able to take that time and come in from out of state in North Carolina, which has become a destination for abortions.

Rovner: All right. Well, I want to circle back to something that’s been going on for a while in the U.S. Senate. We talked about it back in March. Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville is single-handedly holding up many military promotions to protest a Biden administration policy that allows members of the military in states with abortion bans both time off and travel funds to obtain an abortion in another state. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin says that this — the delayed promotions — is starting to impact the nation’s readiness. Is there any resolution to this in sight? It’s now been going on for, what, a month and a half.

Raman: I think that, you know, we’re getting somewhat closer to it, but it’s hard to tell. I mean, we’ve had Mitch McConnell say that he’s not supporting what Tuberville is doing with the blockade of military nominations, so that could be a little bit more pressure compared to anyone else in the caucus putting that pressure. But I think the other thing that had come up is that there had been a report this week that the administration was going to delay on deciding if Space Force Command was going to move from Colorado to Alabama because of Tuberville. And so I think that, if that is the case — two different pressure points — there might be movement. But it’s been happening for a long time. We’ve had hundreds of nominees delayed. And I think the pushback has not necessarily been fully partisan. Even before we had McConnell speak out, we’ve had other members of — Republican senators kind of say, you know, this is maybe not the best move to do this, so —

Rovner: I mean, given how important Republicans take the military, I get why he’s doing this. It’s a pressure point because it’s a DOD [Department of Defense] policy. But still, it looks funny for a Republican to be holding up something that’s really important to the military.

Raman: Earlier this year, I think it was last month, you know, the Senate had done their procedural vote on a Tuberville resolution on something that was kind of similar, when they had the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] rule that allows them to provide abortions for, you know, the Hyde exceptions, so rape, incest, life of the mother. And, you know, that didn’t pass on a procedural vote. So maybe something like that could be, like, a bargaining point. But it would require Democrats to say, “Yes, we do want to vote on this.” And I think that the last comments that Tuberville had even said were that, you know, “Until this policy is gone, I don’t want to waiver.” So it might not be a solution, but it could be something.

Rovner: Well, speaking of things that are proving difficult to resolve, let’s talk about the debt ceiling talks. As of today, Thursday, there’s no agreement yet, although President Biden is going to cut his overseas trip short after Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned that the so-called x-date, when the Treasury can no longer pay its bills, could really happen as soon as June 1. One of the big sticking points appears to be work requirements for programs aimed at low-income Americans, which Republicans are demanding and Democrats are resisting. Welfare, now called Temporary Aid to Needy Families, already has work requirements, as does SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program], the current name for food stamps, which leaves Medicaid, which has been a particular sticking point over the last few years. I guess we were all right back in February when Biden and the Republicans seemed to take Medicare and Social Security off the table, and we all predicted the fight would come down to Medicaid. So here we are, yes?

Knight: Yep, we’re at Medicaid. But it does seem like we’re really going back and forth on it. I think the sentiment at first was kind of that this would be the first thing to fall out of a potential deal between Democrats and Republicans because Democrats are really opposed to this. But I don’t know. This week, President Biden made some comments that were a little confusing. It kind of made it sound like he was potentially open to the idea. And then the White House kind of walked that back this week and sent some press releases out that were like, We don’t want to touch Medicaid. And then I believe it was sometime yesterday, on Wednesday, the president said, “Maybe, but nothing of consequence,” when talking about work requirements. And Congress is leaving today. So I think it’s kind of still up in the air, but the door still seems to be open, I guess is kind of the takeaway.

Rovner: There seems to be some concern from Democrats on Capitol Hill that President Biden may give too much away in trying to avoid a debt default. I mean, he’s already sort of after, you know, “We will not negotiate on the debt ceiling, we will not negotiate on the debt ceiling” — I mean, the administration says they’re negotiating on the budget, but they’re negotiating on the debt ceiling, right?

Knight: Yeah. I mean, and it seems that President Biden, the administration, may be open to budget caps as well or cutting spending. And that was kind of something that it seemed like Democrats at first were not open to doing at all. I talked to some appropriators this week, and they’re pretty upset about — Democratic appropriators — they’re pretty upset because they want the debt ceiling and appropriations to be a separate process, and they’re being tied together right now. Yeah, I think they’re somewhat concerned with how the president is negotiating right now.

Rovner: Well, it’s May 18. There’s been no talk yet of a temporary — although I assume at some point we’re going to say, let’s just extend this out a few days, and let’s extend it out a few more days, and we’ll extend it out a few more days. So obviously, we will watch this space. So the mifepristone case is not the only judicial news this week. In that other case out of Texas, challenging the preventive health services part to the Affordable Care Act, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals — lots of news out of New Orleans this week — temporarily stayed the ruling by Judge Reed O’Connor that the ACA unconstitutionally deputized the U.S. Preventive Health Services Task Force from deciding which preventive services should be provided without copays. Long sentence. I hope it makes sense. Reed O’Connor, of course, being the judge who tried unsuccessfully to declare the entire ACA unconstitutional in 2018. What happens now in this case? Nothing changes until it gets resolved, right?

Roubein: Right. Right now I think that just through that, this means that insurers will be required to continue covering services recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force without cost sharing in care.

Rovner: And that includes PrEP for HIV, which is what’s really at issue with these doctors who are suing the FDA — or actually I guess they’re suing HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] in general — saying that they don’t want to be required to provide these drugs.

Roubein: Yeah, it does include PrEP.

Rovner: So that will continue. I imagine that will also find its way to the Supreme Court. Finally, in not really judicial but court-related news, Envision, the private equity-backed physician staffing firm, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy this week, presumably because the emergency room physician practices it owns can no longer send patients most surprise medical bills. ER bills were among the most common types of surprise bills, when patients would specifically take their emergency to an in-network hospital, only to find that the doctors in the emergency room were all out of network. Is this one small step towards taking some of the profit motive out of health care? I don’t see anybody, like, shedding a lot of tears for Envision declaring bankruptcy here.

Raman: I think the second part, that the lawsuit by the ER doctors against Envision, despite them filing for bankruptcy, is going forward is interesting, and it seems unusual to me, because they’re not asking for monetary damages, but they want, like, a legal finding that the way that the company’s business structure — ownership of the staffing groups — is illegal, and if, like, winning that would ban the practice in the state of California. And so I think if you’re looking at it in terms of, like, things that would happen over the course of time, policywise, that could be something interesting to kind of watch there.

Roubein: I just wanted to hearken back real quick to, like, 2019. In the middle of the surprise billing debate, Envision and another major doctor staffing firm spent significant sums of money to try and sway the surprise billing legislation that the House and the Senate were hashing out.

Rovner: Yeah, they made CNN and MSNBC very rich with their ads.

Roubein: Millions of them.

Rovner: In the ’90s, I covered, you know, this whole corporate practice of medicine thing because I think it’s every state has a law that says that corporations can’t practice medicine; only licensed health professionals can practice medicine. So I’ve always wondered about, you know, what this lawsuit is about anyway. How are these companies actually getting away with doing this? And the answer is maybe they’re not or maybe they won’t. It’s going to be interesting. There’s now so much profit motive and private equity in health care because there’s a lot of money to be made that it’s, I think somebody is actually starting to, you know, call on it. We will definitely see how this plays out. We may not have a “This Week in Private Equity” anymore. Well, let us go back to Capitol Hill, where we finally have a nominee to head the National Institutes of Health, current National Cancer Institute chief Monica Bertagnolli, who is also, ironically, a cancer patient at the moment, although her prognosis is very good, we are told. There hasn’t been a confirmed head of the NIH since Francis Collins stepped down at the end of 2021. Congress hasn’t had to confirm a new head of the NIH since before the passage of the Affordable Care Act. I imagine that Dr. Bertagnolli is going to have to navigate some pretty choppy confirmation waters, even in a Senate where Democrats are nominally in the majority, right?

Knight: Yeah, I spent some time talking to HELP [Health, Education, Labor and Pensions] Committee Republicans last week and this week, and they definitely have some things they want to see out of a new NIH director. They’re definitely concerned about gain-of-function research, potential funding of that type of research, which is supposed to, hypothetically, make viruses more virulent. So several of them said, you know, “We don’t want to see the agency funding that kind of research,” or, “We want restrictions around that kind of research.” They also are concerned with the agency giving a grant to an organization called EcoHealth, which was supposed to have done research in Wuhan that was around gain-of-function-type things. And I think they also, in general, are just concerned with how the NIH and the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] responded to the covid pandemic, and they aren’t happy with some of the decisions they made, what they felt like were mandate — top-down mandates. And so I do think we will see, if we actually get a HELP confirmation hearing any time soon, we’ll see — I think it’s going to be pretty contentious possibly. And as you referenced, I kind of looked into this when I was writing my story, and there really has not been a contentious hearing in a long time. Francis Collins went through a unanimous voice vote when he was confirmed. And then the two previous NIH directors, they kind of sailed through their HELP confirmation hearings. And if you think about it, Francis Collins also has served under both Republican and Democratic presidents. And I wonder if we are coming to a point where that won’t happen anymore with NIH directors.

Rovner: Back when I first started covering the NIH, it was contentious because they were talking about fetal tissue research and stem cell research and stuff that was really controversial. But then Newt Gingrich, when he became speaker of the House, declared that, you know, he wanted the 21st century to be, you know, the century of biomedicine. And he vowed to double the funding for the NIH, which the Republicans did, you know, with the Democrats’ help. So NIH has been this sacred cow, if you will, bipartisanly for at least two decades. And now it’s sort of coming back to being a little bit controversial again. In talking about the debt ceiling and possible budget cuts, I mean, NIH has usually been spared from those. But I’m guessing that if there’s budget caps, NIH is going to be included in those places where we’re going to cut the budget, right?

Knight: Yeah, absolutely. I have been talking to a Republican House appropriator over the NIH. Robert Aderholt told me that, yes, they expect a cut in their budget because Defense and NIH, Labor, HHS are usually the biggest bills. And he told me Defense probably isn’t getting cut very much, so we’re expecting to get cut. So obviously, you know, it’s a messaging bill in the House, but I think the expectation is that they’re going to propose that. The Senate seemed pretty set on keeping NIH funding what it was. They had an NIH appropriations hearing recently. So, I mean, there’s going to be some difference between those two chambers. But I think it does seem likely, especially with all the debt ceiling stuff, that cuts are possible.

Rovner: So that’s NIH. In the meantime, now we have an opening at the CDC because Rochelle Walensky announced her resignation. Have we heard any inklings about who wants to step into that very hot seat?

Roubein: I can point to some reporting from my colleagues at the Post, Dan Diamond and Lena H. Sun. At the time, the day that Walensky announced that she’d be stepping down June 30, they had wrote that White House officials had, you know, been preparing for a little while for a potential departure and had begun gauging interest in the position. And some people that Dan and Lena named that the administration had approached is former New York City Health Commissioner Dave A. Chokshi, former North Carolina Health Secretary Mandy Cohen, and the California health state secretary. Now, we don’t know ultimately what the White House, President Biden, is going to do. I do think it’s worth pointing out that the new CDC director won’t have to be Senate-confirmed; that was passed in the big sweeping government funding bill, that a CDC director would need to be confirmed, but starting January 20, 2025. So, you know, sounds like something, you know, Democrats might have been interested in doing, kind of pushing that out. So, yeah.

Rovner: The CDC is, you know, sort of the one big Department of Health and Human Services job that does not come up for Senate confirmation. Obviously, that is being changed, but it’s not being changed yet. Well, both of these confirmations, mostly the NIH one at this point, comes up before the Senate HELP Committee, Victoria, as you pointed out. Chairman Bernie Sanders there is having — what shall we call them? — some growing pains as chairman of a committee with a heavy legislative workload. What’s the latest here? He’s still kind of working on getting some of these bipartisan bills through, isn’t he?

Knight: Yeah, there is a little bit of a snafu at a recent HELP Committee hearing where Ranking Member Bill Cassidy was not happy that Sen. Sanders was bringing up some amendments that he wasn’t aware of or that they had kind of agreed to table at some point and then he brought them back up during a hearing or during a markup, and so they ended up having to delay the markup itself and do it the next week. And these were bipartisan bills. So it was really just a process issue; it wasn’t so much the subject of the bills. And they kind of worked it out and were able to pass the bills out of the committee, or most of the bills out of the committee, the next week after that happened. So I think that Sen. Sanders is figuring out how to run the HELP Committee. What I’ve kind of heard is that he is somewhat more interested in labor issues than health, and so his focus is not maybe as much on health. And I think you can see that sometimes. Also, when you talk to Sen. Sanders, he’s very much a big-picture guy and isn’t so much in the process weeds often, whereas Sen. Cassidy loves the process.

Rovner: So we’re noticing.

Knight: Yeah, Sen. Cassidy loves the process. So they’re an interesting duo, I think.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, I was interested that this week, you know, Sen. Sanders was among those there reintroducing the “Medicare for All” bill that obviously has no future in the immediate future. But at the same time, community health centers are up for reauthorization this year. And that has always been a pet issue, even when he was House member, you know, Rep. Sanders. This is one of the issues that I know he cares a lot about. And now he’s in charge of making sure that it gets reauthorized. So he’s got sort of these competing big-picture stuff and, not smaller, but smaller than the big-picture stuff that he really cares about. I’ll be curious to see what he’s able to do on that front. I assume there’s no word on that yet, even though the authorization ends Sept. 30, right?

Raman: The sense that I’ve gotten from talking to folks is that community health centers is higher up the totem pole than some of the other issues on the must-pass list. I mean, we still have to deal with the debt ceiling and everything related there. But I think that there has been a little bit more progress then. I mean, this week, at least in the House, Energy and Commerce had marked up their bill that had community health center funding in there. So I think there’s a little bit more push on that end because they’re, you know, fairly bipartisan, have seen interest across the board on that. So I think that they are making some progress there. It’s just that there’s so many other factors right now, and that makes it pretty tricky.

Rovner: The ironic thing about Congress — it’s summertime when everybody else sort of kicks back. — that’s when Congress kicks into gear. So a lot, I imagine, is going to happen in June and July. All right. That is this week’s news. Now it is time for our extra credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Victoria, why don’t you go first this week?

Knight: Sure. My extra credit this week is called “World Health Organization Warns Against Using Artificial Sweeteners.” It was published in The New York Times. Basically, the WHO said this week that artificial sweeteners aren’t effective in reducing body fat and could actually increase the risk of Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. They looked at the available evidence, and it’s just a set of guidelines that they’re issuing. It’s not binding to anything. You know, every country can kind of make their own decision based on this. But I think it was an interesting marker. If you look at the influx of all these artificial sweeteners over time that have kind of become a mainstream part of our diet, they’re available in a bunch of different things that you can get at the store, and people often turn to them when they’re trying to reduce sugar. And now this large body is saying they may actually worsen your health, not help you, and not even reduce fat. So I think that was just kind of interesting. The FDA did not respond to The New York Times’ request for the story, so I’m not sure their stance on this, but just something to note.

Rovner: I was interested that the WHO did that. It seemed sort of very not WHO-ish, but also interesting. Sandhya, why don’t you go next.

Raman: All right, so my extra credit this week is called “A Year After Dobbs Leak, Democrats Still See Abortion Driving 2024 Voters.” And it’s from my colleagues “What the Health?” alum Mary Ellen McIntire and Daniela Altimari. And they take a look at how Democrats are kind of seeing how abortion messaging isn’t fading a year after — almost — the Dobbs decision, are kind of doubling down on focusing on that. President Biden and Vice President Harris were both at the EMILYs List gala this week honoring Nancy Pelosi. And it also comes amid a lot of the state action we talked about earlier of a lot of abortion bans going into place. And so they have a good look at that that you can read.

Rovner: Rachel.

Roubein: My extra credit is called “Thousands Face Medicaid Whiplash in South Dakota and North Carolina,” by Arielle Zionts from KFF Health News. And she takes a look at the unwinding of keeping people on the Medicaid program, particularly in South Dakota and North Carolina, where the dynamic is really interesting, because both states have recently passed Medicaid expansion. So officials are kind of going through the Medicaid rolls beforehand. So some people who could be eligible soon may be getting kicked off, only to need to reapply, or officials need to tell them that they can reapply. So I thought it was a really interesting look on how this is playing out.

Rovner: Yeah, it is. I mean, talk about head-explodingly confusing for people; it’s like, “You’re not eligible now, but you will be in three weeks. So just kind of sit tight and don’t go to the doctor for the next couple of weeks,” basically where they are. Well, my story is from The Washington Post, and it’s called “A 150-Year-Old Law Could Help Determine the Fate of U.S. Abortion Access,” by Dan Diamond and Ann Marimow. And it’s about the Comstock Act, which we have talked about before. It’s a Reconstruction-era law pushed through Congress by an anti-vice crusader, Anthony Comstock, who I learned this week was not actually a member of Congress. He was just an interested party. The law purports to ban the mailing of all sorts of lewd and lascivious items, including those intended to be used for abortion. Abortion opponents are trying to resurrect the law, which has never been formally repealed. But it turns out that Comstock wasn’t actually all that anti-abortion. In a newly resurrected interview that Comstock did with Harper’s Weekly in 1915, he said he never intended for the law to interfere with the practice of medicine by licensed doctors, including for abortion. Quote, “A reputable doctor may tell his patient, in his office what is necessary, and a druggist may sell on a doctor’s written prescription drugs which he would not be allowed to sell otherwise.” That’s how Comstock is quoted as saying. Um, wow. It’s just another weird twist in an already very twisty story. But let’s keep track of the Comstock Law going forward. 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 ever-patient 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 there. I’m at @jrovner. Sandhya?

Raman: @SandhyaWrites.

Rovner: Rachel.

Roubein: @rachel_roubein.

Rovner: Victoria.

Knight: @victoriaregisk.

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).

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 partisan fight in Congress over how to raise the nation’s debt ceiling to prevent a default has accelerated, as the U.S. Treasury predicted the borrowing limit could be reached as soon as June 1. On the table, potentially, are large cuts to federal spending programs, including major health programs.

Meanwhile, legislators in two conservative states, South Carolina and Nebraska, narrowly declined to pass very strict abortion bans, as some Republicans are apparently getting cold feet about the impact on care for pregnant women in their states.

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

Panelists

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

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

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The United States is approaching its debt limit — much sooner than expected. And it is unclear how, or if, lawmakers can resolve their differences over the budget before the nation defaults on its debts. Details of the hastily constructed House Republican proposal are coming to light, including apparently inadvertent potential cuts to veterans’ benefits and a lack of exemptions protecting those who are disabled from losing Medicaid and nutrition benefits under proposed work requirements.
• A seemingly routine markup of a key Senate drug pricing package devolved this week as it became clear the committee’s leadership team, under Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), had not completed its due diligence to ensure members were informed and on board with the legislation. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee plans to revisit the package next week, hoping to send it to the full Senate for a vote.
• In more abortion news, Republican lawmakers in North Carolina have agreed on a new, 12-week ban, which would further cut already bare-bones access to the procedure in the South. And federal investigations into two hospitals that refused emergency care to a pregnant woman in distress are raising the prospect of yet another abortion-related showdown over states’ rights before the Supreme Court.
• The number of deaths from covid-19 continues to dwindle. The public health emergency expires next week, and mask mandates are being dropped by health care facilities. There continue to be issues tallying cases and guiding prevention efforts. What’s clear is the coronavirus is not now and may never be gone, but things are getting better from a public health standpoint.
• The surgeon general has issued recommendations to combat the growing public health crisis of loneliness. Structural problems that contribute, like the lack of paid leave and few communal gathering spaces, may be ripe for government intervention. But while health experts frame loneliness as a societal-level problem, the federal government’s advice largely targets individual behaviors.

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

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “Dog-Walking Injuries May Be More Common Than You Think,” by Lindsey Bever.

Joanne Kenen: The Atlantic’s “There Is No Stopping the Allergy Apocalypse,” by Yasmin Tayag.

Rachel Cohrs: ProPublica’s “This Pharmacist Said Prisoners Wouldn’t Feel Pain During Lethal Injection. Then Some Shook and Gasped for Air,” by Lauren Gill and Daniel Moritz-Rabson.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Wall Street Journal’s “Patients Lose Access to Free Medicines Amid Spat Between Drugmakers, Health Plans,” by Peter Loftus and Joseph Walker.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• The New York Times’ “Surgeon General: We Have Become a Lonely Nation. It’s Time to Fix That,” by Vivek H. Murthy.
• “What the Health?” podcast, July 7, 2022: “A Chat With the Surgeon General on Health Worker Burnout.”
• KFF Health News’ “After Idaho’s Strict Abortion Ban, OB-GYNs Stage a Quick Exodus,” by Sarah Varney.
• Politico’s “‘You Can’t Hide Things’: Feinstein, Old Age and Removing Senators,” by Joanne Kenen.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Health Programs Are at Risk as Debt Ceiling Cave-In Looms

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’

Episode Title: Health Programs Are at Risk as Debt Ceiling Cave-In Looms

Episode Number: 296

Published: May 4, 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 at KFF Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, May 4, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. 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 Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Good morning.

Rovner: And Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: So plenty of news this week. We’re going to dive right in. We’re going to start again this week with the nation’s debt limit, which Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned this week could be reached as soon as June 1. That’s a lot earlier than I think most people had been banking on. And if Congress doesn’t act to raise it by then, the U.S. could default on its debts for the first time in history. Do we have any feel yet for how this gets untangled now that we know — I think there are, what, eight days left where both the House and the Senate will be in session?

Ollstein: You said it caught all of us by surprise. It seems to have caught lawmakers by surprise as well. They seem to have thought they had a lot more time to fight and blow smoke at one another, and they really don’t. And there has not been a clear path forward. There are efforts to get Mitch McConnell more involved. He has sort of said, “Ah, you people figure this out. You know, whatever House Republicans and the White House can agree on, the Senate will pass.” And he’s been trying to stay out of it. But now both Republicans and Democrats want him to weigh in. He’s seen as maybe a little more reasonable than some of the House Republicans to some of the players, and so —

Rovner: He may be one of the few Republicans who understands that it would be very, very bad to default.

Ollstein: Right. You have a lot of House Republicans saying it wouldn’t be so bad — the tough medicine for Washington spending, etc. So, you know, if I were to bet money, which I wouldn’t, I would bet on some sort of short-term punt; I mean, we’re really coming up to the deadline, and that’s what Congress loves to do.

Rovner: Yeah, I do too.

Kenen: I agree with Alice. You know, I think if the deadline had been a couple of months from now — they really didn’t want to do a punt. I mean, I think they wanted to walk up to the cliff and cut some kind of deal at the last hour. But I think this caught everybody off guard, including possibly Janet Yellen. So I think it’s much more likely there’ll be a short-term postponement. I think the Democrats would like to tie it to the regular budget talks for the end of the fiscal year. I’m not sure the Republicans will consider September 30 short-term. It might be shorter than that. Of course, we could have another one. But I think Alice’s instincts are right here.

Rovner: Yeah, I do too. I mean, the best thing Congress does is kick the can down the road. They do it every year with all kinds of things. Sorry, Rachel, I interrupted you.

Cohrs: Oh, no, that’s all right. I was just going to flag that the date to watch next week is May 9, when I think they’re all supposed to kind of get in a room together and start this conversation. So I think we’ll hopefully have a readout. I don’t know that they’re going to solve everything in that meeting, but we’ll at least get a sense of where everyone’s coming from and just how acrimonious things really are. So, yeah, those will kick off in earnest.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, one thing the Democrats are talking about is a discharge petition in the House, which is a rarely successful but not all that little-used way to bring a bill to the floor over the objections of the party in charge. Is there any chance that this is going to work this time?

Kenen: That’s one reason the Republicans might not want an extension, because they probably couldn’t do it in the next two or three weeks. There’s a slight chance they could do it in early to mid-June. The Democrats need five Republicans to sign on to that. I would think that if any Republicans are willing to sign on to that, they’re not going to say it in public, so we won’t know who they are, but the chances of it working improve if there’s an extension; the chances of it working are still not great, but I don’t think it’s impossible. I do not think it’s impossible, because there are Republicans who understand that defaulting is not a good idea.

Rovner: This has been painted this week as, Oh, this is a secret idea. It’s like, it’s not, but the actual discharge petition, you get to sign it not anonymously, but no one knows who’s signing on. It’s not like co-sponsoring a regular bill.

Kenen: But stuff gets out. I mean, there’s no such thing as a secret on the Hill.

Rovner: But technically, when you sign it, it’s not an obvious public thing that you’re supporting it, so we will — we’ll have to see. Well, we know that Republicans are demanding deep, in some cases very deep, cuts to federal spending with their bill to raise the debt ceiling. We’re finding out just how deep some of the cuts would be. One possible piece of fallout I think Republicans didn’t bargain for: They say they intended to exempt veterans from the cuts, but apparently the bill doesn’t actually do that, which has already prompted cries of outrage from very powerful veterans groups. This is the danger of these really broadly written bills, right, is that you can sort of actually accidentally end up sweeping in things you didn’t mean to.

Cohrs: Right. Well, this bill came together very quickly, and Kevin McCarthy was dealing with a lot of competing factions and trying to make everyone happy on issues like energy credits, that kind of thing. And obviously this didn’t get attention before. And I think that that’s just kind of a symptom that isn’t infrequent in Washington, where things come together really quickly, and sometimes there are some unintended consequences, but I think that’s one of the functions of kind of the news cycle in Washington especially, is to bring attention to some of these things before they become law. So the rhetoric has been very fiery, but again, there’s a possibility that it could be worked out at a later date if for some reason the final deal ends up looking something like the Republican bill, which is not necessarily the case.

Rovner: Once upon a time — and we’ll talk about this next — we had something called regular order, where bills went through the committee process, there was a committee report, and people had time to look at them before they came to the floor. And now it’s sort of like a fish. If you leave it out too long, it’s going to start to smell. So you got to catch it and pass it right away. Well, before we get to that, another change that those people who wrote the Republican bill probably didn’t intend: The requirement for states to institute work requirements for those who get Medicaid and/or food stamps — something that states cannot opt out of, we are told — does not include exemptions for people with disabilities. In other words, they would be required to work if they are of the age. Even those who’ve been getting, you know, disability benefits for years would have to be recertified as quote “unfit to work” by a doctor, or else they would have their benefits terminated. I would imagine that states would be among those joining the uproar with this. They have enough to do with redeterminations right now from people who got on Medicaid during the pandemic. The last thing they need is to have to basically redetermine every single person who’s already been determined to have a disability.

Kenen: And it’s a burden for the disabled too, even if the states are willing to do it. Bureaucracies are hard to deal with, and people would get lost in the shuffle. There’s absolutely no question that disabled people would get lost in the shuffle given the system they’ve set up.

Ollstein: Yes, this is a perfect example of how people fall through the cracks, and especially because a lot of the mechanisms that states set up to do this, we’ve seen, are not fully accessible for people with disabilities. Some of them have audio-only options. Some of them have online-only options. It’s very hard for people to — even if they know about it, which they might not — to navigate this and become certified. And so there is a fair amount of data out there that the projected savings from policies like work requirements don’t come from more people working; they come from people getting kicked off the rolls who maybe shouldn’t be, should be fully eligible for benefits.

Kenen: And it’s not just physical disability. I mean, there’s all sorts of developmental disabilities — people who really aren’t going to be able to navigate the system. It’s just — it may not be what they intended, it may be what they intended, who knows. But it’s not a viable approach.

Rovner: Yeah. Meanwhile, even if the Democrats could sneak a bill out of the House with a little bit of moderate Republican support, there’s no guarantee it could get through the Senate, where West Virginia’s Joe Manchin says he supports at least some budget cuts and work requirements and where the absence of California’s Dianne Feinstein, who is 89 and has been away from Washington since February, trying to recover from a case of shingles, has loomed large in a body where the elected majority only has 51 votes. Joanne, you wrote about the sticky problem of senators of an advanced age. Feinstein is far from the first, but is there anything that can be done about this when, you know, one of our older senators is out for a long time?

Kenen: There is no institutional solution to an incapacitated senator. And in addition to the magazine piece I wrote about this yesterday for Politico Magazine, I also wrote about last night in Politico Nightly sort of going back to the history until the 1940s. I mean, there have been people, a handful, but people out for like three or four years. The only tool is an expulsion vote, and that is not used. You need two-thirds vote, and you can’t get that. It was used during the Civil War, where there were I think it was 14 senators from Confederate states who didn’t sort of get that they were supposed to leave once the Civil War started, so they got expelled. Other than that, there’s only been one case, and it was for treason, in the 1790s. So they’re not going to start expelling senators who have strokes or who have dementia or who have other ailments. That’s just not going to happen. But that means they’re stuck with them. And it’s not just Feinstein. I mean, there have been other impaired senators, and there will be more impaired senators in the future. There’s no equivalent to the 25th Amendment, for which the vice president and the cabinet can remove a president. The Senate has no mechanism other than behind-the-scenes cajoling. And, you know, we have seen Dianne Feinstein — she didn’t even announce she wasn’t running for reelection until other people announced they were running for her seat. But it’s like 50-50 Senate — if it’s 47-53 and one is sick, it doesn’t matter so much. If it’s 50-50 or 51-49, it matters a lot.

Rovner: Yeah, and that’s what I was going to say. I mean, you and I remember when Tim Johnson from South Dakota had, what was it, an aneurysm?

Kenen: I think he had a stroke, right?

Rovner: Yeah. It took him a year to come back, which he did eventually.

Kenen: Well, we both covered Strom Thurmond, who, you know, was clearly not —

Rovner: —he was not all there —

Kenen: — situational awareness for quite a few years. I mean, it was very clear, you know, as I mention in this story, that, you know, instead of the staff following his orders, he was following the staff’s orders and he was not cognizant of Senate proceedings or what was going on.

Rovner: Yeah, that’s for sure.

Kenen: But there also are some who are really fine. I mean, we know some who are 80, 88 — you know, in their 80s who are totally alert. And so an age cutoff is also problematic. That doesn’t work either.

Rovner: Right. Ted Kennedy was, you know, right there until he wasn’t. So I’m amazed at the at how some of these 80-something-year-old senators have more energy than I do. Well, elsewhere on Capitol Hill, we talked about the bipartisan drug price bill last week in the Senate that was supposed to be marked up and sent to the floor this week, which did not happen. Rachel, how did what should have been a fairly routine committee vote get so messed up?

Cohrs: Yeah, it was a — it was a meltdown. We haven’t seen something like this in quite a — a couple of years, I think, on the Hill, where Chairman Bernie Sanders’ first major, you know, health care markup. And I think it just became clear that they had not done due diligence down the dais and had buy-in on these bills, but also the amendment process, which sounds like a procedural complaint but it really — there were some substantive changes in these amendments, and it was obvious from the markup that senators were confused about who supported what and what could get the support of the caucus. And those conversations in the Lamar Alexander, you know, iteration of this committee happened before. So I think it, you know, was a lesson certainly for everyone that there does need to be — I don’t know, it’s hard to draw the line between kind of regular order, where every senator can offer an amendment, and what passes. And it’s just another symptom of that issue in Congress where even sometimes popular things that an individual senator might support — they could pass on their own — that throwing off the dynamics of packages that they’re trying to put together. So I think they are hoping to give it another shot next week after a hearing with executives from insulin manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers. But it was pretty embarrassing this week.

Rovner: Yeah. I was going to say, I mean normally these things are negotiated out behind the scenes so by the time you actually — if you’re going to have a markup; sometimes markups get canceled at the last minute because they haven’t been able to work things out behind the scenes. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Bernie Sanders has not been chairman before of a major legislative committee, right? He was chairman of the Budget Committee, but they don’t do this kind of take up a bill and make amendments.

Kenen: I don’t remember, but he was a lead author of the bipartisan veterans bill. So he has — it’s probably his biggest legislative achievement in the Senate. And that was a major bipartisan bill. So he does know how these things work.

Rovner: Right. He knows how to negotiate.

Kenen: It just didn’t work.

Rovner: Yeah, I think this came as a surprise — a committee like this that’s really busy with legislation and that does legislation that frequently gets amended and changed before it goes to the floor. I am told he was indeed chairman of Veterans’ Affairs, but they don’t do as much legislation as the HELP Committee. I think this was perhaps his first outing. Maybe he learned some important lessons about how this committee actually works and how it should go on. All right. Rachel, you said that there’s going to be a hearing and then they’re going to try this markup again. So we’ll see if they get through this in the May work period, as they call it.

Kenen: Maybe they’ll come out holding hands.

Rovner: I want to turn to abortion. It seems that maybe, possibly, the tide in states is turning against passage of the broadest possible bans. In the same day last week we saw sweeping abortion restrictions turned back, though barely, by lawmakers in both South Carolina and Nebraska. And in North Carolina, where Republicans just got a supermajority big enough to override the state’s Democratic governor’s veto, lawmakers are now looking at a 12-week ban rather than the six-week or total ban that was expected. Alice, is this a trend or kind of an anomaly?

Ollstein: Every state is different, and you still have folks pushing for total or near-total bans in a lot of states. And I will say that in North Carolina specifically, a 12-week ban will have a big impact, because that is the state where a lot of people throughout the entire South are going right now, so they’re getting incoming folks from Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Louisiana. So it’s one of the sort of last havens in the entire southeast area, and so even a restriction to 12 weeks, you know, we know that the vast majority of abortions happen before that point, but with fewer and fewer places for people to go, wait times are longer, people are pushed later into pregnancy who want to terminate a pregnancy sooner. And so it could be a big deal. This has also been kind of a crazy saga in North Carolina, with a single lawmaker switching parties and that being what is likely to enable this to pass.

Rovner: Yeah, a Democrat turned Republican for reasons that I think have not been made totally clear yet, but giving the Republicans this veto-proof majority.

Kenen: They’ve got the veto-proof majority. I did read one report saying there was one vote in question. It might be this lawmaker who turned, whether she’s for 12-week or whether she’s for 15 or 20 or whatever else. So it’ll certainly pass. I don’t have firsthand knowledge of this, but I did read one story that said there’s some question about they might be one short of the veto-proof majority. So we’ll just have to wait and see.

Rovner: Yeah, North Carolina is obviously a state that’s continuing. So my colleague and sometime podcast panelist Sarah Varney has a story this week out of Idaho, where doctors who treat pregnant women are leaving the state and hospitals are closing maternity wards because they can no longer staff them. It’s a very good story, but what grabbed me most was a line from an Idaho state representative who voted for the ban, Republican Mark Sauter. He told Sarah, quote, “he hadn’t thought very much about the state abortion ban other than I’m a pro-life guy and I ran that way.” He said it wasn’t until he had dinner with the wife of a hospital emergency room doctor that he realized what the ban was doing to doctors and hospitals in the state and to pregnant women who were not trying to have abortions. Are we starting to see more of that, Alice? I’ve seen, you know, a few Republicans here and there saying that — now that they’re seeing what’s playing out — they’re not so sure these really dramatic bans are the way to go.

Ollstein: Yeah, I will say we are seeing more and more of that. I’ve done some reporting on Tennessee, where some of the Republicans who voted for the state’s near-total ban are expressing regret and saying that there have been unintended consequences for people in obstetric emergency situations. You know, they said they didn’t realize how this would be a chilling effect on doctors providing care in more than just so-called elective abortion situations. But it does seem that those Republicans who are speaking out in that way are still in the majority. The party overall is still pushing for these restrictions. They’re also accusing medical groups of misinterpreting them. So we are seeing this play out. For instance, you know, in Tennessee, there was a push to include more exceptions in the ban, alter enforcement so that doctors wouldn’t be afraid to perform care in emergency situations, and a lot of that was rejected. What they ended up passing didn’t go as far as what the medical groups say is needed to protect pregnant people.

Rovner: It’s important to point out that the groups on the other side, the anti-abortion groups, have not backed off. They are still — and these are the groups that have supported most of these pro-life Republicans who are in these state legislatures. So were they to, you know, even support more exemptions that would, you know, turn them against important supporters that they have, so I think it’s this —

Ollstein: —right—

Rovner: —sort of balancing act going on.

Ollstein: Plus, we’ve seen even in the states that have exemptions, people are not able to use them in a lot of circumstances. That’s why you have a lot of pro-abortion rights groups, including medical groups, saying exemptions may give the appearance of being more compassionate but are not really navigable in practice.

Rovner: Right. I mean, we’ve had all these stories every week of how near death does a pregnant woman have to be before doctors are not afraid to treat her because they will be dragged into court or put in jail?

Ollstein: Right.

Rovner: So this continues. Well, the other big story of the week has to do with exactly that. The federal Department of Health and Human Services has opened an investigation into two hospitals, one each in Missouri and Kansas, that federal officials say violated the federal emergency medical care law by refusing to perform an abortion on a woman in medical distress. If the hospitals don’t prove that they will comply with the law, they could face fines or worse, be banned from participation in Medicare and Medicaid. I can’t help but think this is the kind of fight that’s going to end up at the Supreme Court, right? I mean, this whole, if you have a state law that conflicts with federal law, what do you do?

Ollstein: Yeah, we’re seeing that both in the EMTALA space [Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act] and in the drug space. We’re seeing a lot of state-federal conflicts being tested in court, sort of for the first time in the abortion question. So we also, in addition to these new federal actions, you know, we still have cases playing out related to abortion and emergency care in a few other states. So I think this will continue, and I think that you’re really seeing that exactly the letter of the law is one thing, and the chilling effect is another thing. And how doctors point out if a lot of these state abortion bans are structured around what’s called an affirmative defense, which means that doctors have to cross their fingers and provide the care and know that if they get sued, they can mount a defense that, you know, this was necessary to save someone’s life. Now, doctors point out that a lot of people are not willing to do that and a lot of people are afraid to do that; they don’t have the resources to do it. Plus, in the medical space, when you apply for licenses or things in the future, it doesn’t just say, “Were you ever convicted of something?” It says, “Were you ever charged with something?” So even if the charges are dropped, it still remains on their record forever.

Rovner: Yeah, and they have malpractice premiums. I mean, there’s a whole lot of things that this will impact. Well, I want to talk about covid, because we haven’t talked about covid in a couple of weeks. It is still with us. Ask people who went to the big CDC conference last week; I think they’ve had, what, 35 cases out of that conference? Yet the public health emergency officially ends on May 11, which will trigger all manner of changes. We’re already seeing states disenrolling people for Medicaid now that they’re allowed to redetermine eligibility again, including some people who say they’re still eligible, as we talked about a little bit earlier. We’re also seeing vaccine mandates lifted. Does this mean that the pandemic is really over? It obviously is a major signal, right, even if covid is still around?

Kenen: It means it’s legally over. It doesn’t mean it’s biologically over. But it is clearly better. I mean, will we have more surges next winter or over some kind of holiday gathering? You know, it’s not gone and it’s probably never going to be gone. However, we also don’t know how many cases there really are because not everybody tests or they don’t realize that cold is covid or they test at home and don’t report it. So the caseload is murky, but we sure note that the death toll is the lowest it’s been in two years, and I think it’s under 200 a day — and I’d have to double check that — but it’s really dropped and it’s continuing to drop. So even though there’s concern about whether we still need some of these protections, and I personally think we do need some of them in some places, the bottom line is, are people dying the way they were dying? No. That is — you know, I’ve watched that death toll drop over the last couple of weeks; it’s consistent and it’s significant. And so we should all be grateful for that. But whether it stays low without some of these measures and access to testing and access to shots and — and people are confused, you know, like, Oh, the shots aren’t going to be free or they are going to be free or I don’t need one. I mean, that whole murkiness on the part of the public — I mean, I have friends who are quite well aware of things. I mean, I have friends who just got covid the other day and, you know, said, “Well, you know, I’m not going to — I’m not really, really sick, so I don’t need Paxlovid.” And I said, “You know, you really need to call your doctor and talk about that.” So her doctor gave her Paxlovid — so she actually had a risk factor, so, two risk factors. So it’s not over, but we also have to acknowledge that it’s better than many people thought it would be by May 2023.

Rovner: Yeah, I know. I mean, the big complaints I’m seeing are people with chronic illnesses who worry that masks are no longer required in health care facilities, and that that seems to upset them.

Kenen: I mean, I think if you were to ask a doctor, I would hope that you could ask your doctor to put on a mask in a certain situation. And that doesn’t work in a hospital where lots of people around, but the doctors I’ve been to recently have also worn masks and —

Rovner: Yeah, mine too.

Kenen: Luckily, we do know now that if you wear a good mask, an N95, properly, it is not perfect, but you still can protect yourself by wearing a mask. You know, I take public transport and I wear masks in public transport, and I still avoid certain settings, and I worry more about the people who are at risk and they don’t understand that the shots are still free; they don’t know how to get medication; they don’t — there’s just a lot of stuff out there that we have communicated so poorly. And the lack of a public health emergency, with both the resources and the messaging — I worry about that.

Rovner: And as we pointed out, people losing their health insurance, whether, you know —

Kenen: That’s a whole other —

Rovner: Yeah, rightly or not. I mean, you know, whether they’re no longer eligible.

Kenen: Most are, but they’re still, you know — falling through the cracks is a major theme in American health care.

Rovner: It is. Well, finally this week, the U.S. surgeon general, Vivek Murthy, wants us to be less lonely. Really. The health effects of loneliness have been a signature issue for Dr. Murthy. We talked about it at some length in a podcast last summer. I will be sure to add the link to that in the show notes. But now, instead of just describing how loneliness is bad for your health — and trust me, loneliness is bad for your health — the surgeon general’s office has issued a new bulletin with how Americans can make themselves less lonely. It’s not exactly rocket science. It recommends spending more time in person with friends and less time online. But does highlighting the issue make it easier to deal with? I mean, this is not one of the traditional public health issues that we’ve talked about over the years.

Ollstein: I’m very interested to see where this conversation goes, because it’s already sort of feeling like a lot of other public health conversations in the U.S. in that they describe this huge, existential, population-level problem, but the solutions pushed are very individual and very like, you have to change your lifestyle, you have to log off, you have to join more community groups. And it’s like, if this is a massive societal problem, shouldn’t there be bigger, broader policy responses?

Kenen: You can’t mandate someone going out for coffee —

Ollstein: —exactly—

Kenen: —three times a week. I mean, this one —

Ollstein: Exactly. You can’t boostrap loneliness.

Kenen: This one, I think — I think it validates people’s feelings. I mean, I think people who are feeling isolated —I mean, we had loneliness before the pandemic, but the pandemic has changed how we live and how we socialize. And if — I think it’s sort of telling people, you know, if you’re feeling this way, it is real and it’s common, and other people are feeling that way, too, so pick up the phone. And maybe those of us who are more extroverted will reach out to people we know who are more isolated. So, I mean, I’m not sure what HHS or the surgeon general can do to make people spend time with one another.

Ollstein: Well, there are structural factors in loneliness. There are economic factors. There is, you know, a lack of paid time off. There are a lack of public spaces where people can gather, you know, in a safe and pleasant way. You know, other countries do tons of things. You know, there are programs in other countries that encourage teens, that finance and support teens forming garage bands, in Scandinavian countries. I mean, there are there are policy responses, and maybe some of them are already being tried out at like the city level in a lot of places. But I’m not hearing a lot other than telling people to make individual life changes, which may not be possible.

Rovner: But although I was going to point out that one of the reasons that this is becoming a bigger issue is that the number of Americans living alone has gone up. You know, and again, Joanne, this was way before the pandemic, but it’s more likely — people are more in a position to be lonely, basically. I mean, it’s going to affect a larger part of the population, so —

Kenen: And some of the things that Alice suggested are policies that are being worked on because of, you know, social determinants and other things: recreation, housing. Those things are happening at both the state and federal level. So they would help loneliness, but I don’t think you’re going to see them branded as a loneliness — national loneliness program. But, you know, the demographics of this country — you know, families are scattered. Zoom is great, you know, but Zoom isn’t real life. And there are more people who are single, there are more people who are widowed, there are more people who never married, there are more people who are divorced, the elderly cohort. Many people live alone, and teens and kids have had a hard time in the last couple years. So I think on one level it’s easy for people to make fun of it because, you know, we’re coming out of this pandemic and the surgeon general’s talking about loneliness. On the other hand, there are millions or tens of millions of people who are lonely. And I think this does sort of help people understand that there are things to be done about it that — I don’t think individual action is always a bad thing. I mean, encouraging people to think about the people in their lives who might be lonely is probably a good thing. It’s social cohesion. I mean, Republicans can make that case, right, that we have to, you know, everybody needs to pick up a telephone or go for a walk and knock on a door.

Rovner: Yeah, they do. I mean, Republicans are big on doing things at the community level. That’s the idea, is let’s have government at the lowest level possible. Well, this will be an interesting issue to watch and see if it catches on more with the public health community. All right. That is this week’s news. Now it is time for our extra credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at KFF Health News and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Rachel, why don’t you go first this week?

Cohrs: My story is in ProPublica and the headline is “This Pharmacist Said Prisoners Wouldn’t Feel Pain During Lethal Injection. Then Some Shook and Gasped for Air,” by Lauren Gill and Daniel Moritz-Rabson. And I think it’s just a story about this ongoing issue of expert testimony in criminal justice settings. And obviously these are really important questions about medications that, you know, are used for lethal injections and how they work and just how, you know, people are responding to them in the moment. And I mean, it’s just such an important issue that gets overlooked in the pharmaceutical space sometimes. And yeah, I think it’s just something that is very sobering, and it’s just a really important read.

Rovner: Yeah. I mean, there’s been a lot about doctors and the ethics of participating in these. This is the first time I’ve seen a story about pharmacists. Joanne?

Kenen: Well, I saw this one in The Atlantic. It’s by Yasmin Tayag, and I couldn’t resist the headline: “There Is No Stopping the Allergy Apocalypse.” Basically, because of climate change, allergies are getting worse. If you have allergies, you already know that. If you think you don’t have allergies, you’re probably wrong; you’re probably about to get them. They take a little while to show up. So it’s not in one region; it’s everywhere. So, you know, we’re all going to be wheezing, coughing, sneezing, sniffling a lot more than we’re used to, including if you were not previously a wheezer, cougher, or sniffler.

Rovner: Oh, I can’t wait. Alice.

Ollstein: So I have a piece from The Wall Street Journal called “Patients Lose Access to Free Medicines Amid Spat Between Drugmakers, Health Plans,” by Peter Loftus and Joseph Walker. And it is some really tragic stories about folks who are seeing their monthly costs for medications they depend on to live shoot up. In one instance in the story, what he has to pay per month shot up from 15 to more than 12,000. And so you have the drugmakers, the insurance companies, and the middlemen pointing fingers at each other and saying, you know, “This is your fault, this is your fault, this is your fault.” And meanwhile, patients are suffering. So, really interesting story, hope it leads to some action to help folks.

Rovner: I was going to say, maybe the HELP Committee will get its act together, because it’s trying to work on this.

Ollstein: Yeah.

Rovner: Well, my story is from The Washington Post, and it’s called “Dog-Walking Injuries May Be More Common Than You Think,” by Lindsey Bever. And it’s about a study from Johns Hopkins, including your colleagues, Joanne, that found that nearly half a million people were treated in U.S. emergency rooms for an injury sustained while walking a dog on a leash. Not surprisingly, most were women and older adults, who are most likely to be pulled down by a very strong dog. The three most diagnosed injuries were finger fractures, traumatic brain injuries, and shoulder injuries. As a part-time dog trainer in my other life, here are my two biggest tips, other than training your dog to walk politely on a leash: Don’t use retractable leashes; they can actually cut off a finger if it gets caught in one. And never wrap the leash around your hand or your wrist. So that is my medical advice for this week. And that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us too. Special thanks, as always, to our ever-patient 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, as long as Twitter’s still there. I’m @jrovner. Joanne?

Kenen: @JoanneKenen.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs: @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).

The Host

Mary Agnes Carey
KFF Health News

@maryagnescarey

Read Mary Agnes' stories

Mary Agnes Carey, Partnerships Editor and Senior Correspondent, oversees placement of KFF Health News content in publications nationwide. She has covered health care policy and politics for KFF Health News, CQ, Dow Jones Newswires, and other news outlets.

Supreme Court justices could act at any moment on access to the abortion pill mifepristone. Beyond reproductive health, their ruling could carry significant implications for states’ rights and FDA independence and integrity. For now, though, observers are unsure what the court will do — or what exactly prompted justices to again delay their decision this week.

At the Capitol, lawmakers grumbled, scoffed, and bickered this week as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy revealed the Republican proposal to cut government spending. The package would be dead-on-arrival in the Democratic-controlled Senate. But of note is the pushback from within McCarthy’s own caucus, with some hard-right conservatives pressing to go further by demanding the repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.

And President Joe Biden pursued new efforts to grant legal status to young immigrants living in the country illegally who were brought here as children, sometimes called “Dreamers,” as his administration announced a plan to grant them access to government-funded health coverage.

This week’s panelists are Mary Agnes Carey of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and 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

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Supreme Court extended its stay on the use of mifepristone through Friday, giving justices longer to act on a major, complicated case with nationwide implications for reproductive health. It is unclear what the court will do, though there are several actions it could take — including sending the case back to the lower courts or again extending the stay and buying justices even more time to come to agreement or pen dissents.
• GenBioPro, which produces the generic version of mifepristone, sued the FDA on Wednesday, attempting to preserve access to the drug. About two-thirds of the mifepristone currently used in the United States is generic.
• In congressional news, House Speaker McCarthy released what is effectively Republicans’ opening offer in the fight over raising the debt ceiling. The package includes GOP health priorities that would not garner needed support in the Senate, like work requirements for Medicaid and the clawback of unspent covid-19 pandemic funds.
• While health costs are high across government programs, Medicaid takes the big hit in the Republican proposal to cut federal spending. Republicans have embraced work requirements for government assistance since at least the 1980s, yet in Arkansas — a state that implemented work rules for Medicaid — it has proved challenging to verify that enrollees are meeting those requirements.
• The Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over much of federal health spending, revealed a package this week to tackle drug pricing. While the proposal is in the early stages, it seeks to incorporate bipartisan measures touching pharmacy benefit managers, insulin users, and more.
• And on the coverage front, the Biden administration announced that immigrant kids brought to the United States who remain here under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program will be able to apply for Medicaid and Affordable Care Act coverage. This eligibility expansion comes as states prepare to disenroll those who no longer qualify for Medicaid as the public health emergency’s coverage protections expire. Expect a fight from some states as they resist being forced to cover insurance for individuals living in the U.S. without legal permission.

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

Mary Agnes Carey: The New York Times’ “A Beauty Treatment Promised to Zap Fat. For Some, It Brought Disfigurement,” by Anna Kodé

Joanne Kenen: The New York Times’ “My Transplanted Heart and I Will Die Soon,” by Amy Silverstein

Sandhya Raman: ABC News’ “Puerto Rico’s Water Supply Is Being Depleted, Contaminated by Manufacturing Industry on the Island, Experts Say,” by Jessie DiMartino, Lilia Geho, and Julia Jacobo

Rachel Cohrs: The Wall Street Journal’s “‘I Hate You, Kathie Lee Gifford!’ Ozempic Users Report Bizarre Dreams,” by Peter Loftus

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Will They or Won’t They (Block the Abortion Pill)?

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Will They or Won’t They (Block the Abortion Pill)?Episode Number: 294Published: April 20, 2023

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

Mary Agnes Carey: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Mary Agnes Carey, partnerships editor for KFF Health News. I’m filling in this week for Julie Rovner, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, April 20, at 10 a.m. Eastern. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Joining us today by video conference are Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Carey: Rachel Cohrs of Stat.

Cohrs: Morning, everyone.

Carey: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Raman: Good morning.

Carey: Let’s start with the current court action on mifepristone. The Supreme Court was scheduled to rule yesterday on a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that rolled back FDA action since 2016, allowing patients to get mifepristone through the mail, authorizing prescriptions by medical professionals other than doctors, and approving the drug’s use up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy instead of seven. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito Jr, who’d previously set Wednesday as the deadline for the court to act, extended that stay until Friday, and the justices could certainly act before they choose to —hopefully not while we’re taping. But I wanted to get everyone’s thoughts on why do you think the court didn’t act yesterday? Joanne, can I start with you?

Kenen: I mean, presumably they’re still hashing it out. There’re probably two or three judges who are still thinking about it or discussing it with their colleagues, or colleagues who want to think they can persuade them to their side. I mean, there’s something internal. On the other hand, I mean, they didn’t originally give themselves a lot of time to consider a complicated and historic case. We know there’s an anti-abortion majority. We know they’re not crazy about medical abortions any more than they are about surgical abortions. But this has large implications about states’ rights and about the sort of integrity of the FDA. So they may just wanted to sleep on it. They’re human, but the two sides are battling for two or three in the middle.

Carey: So what does this signal about how they might rule? I mean, to your point about the split, the battle, what are the options? What do you — Sandhya, what do you think about what they might —

Kenen: Well, if it was slam dunk, we’d have had it.

Carey: That is true. That is true. It is not a slam dunk.

Raman: And everyone that I have talked to in the last few weeks on this is just that there are so many different options, different permutations, that it’s difficult even for people that are experts on FDA policy, like expert lawyers, experts on abortion policy, to just kind of like predict the nuances. You know, they could let the stay expire. They could send it back to the 5th Circuit. They could decide to hold arguments and let it expire or not expire. They could decide something different than the 5th Circuit. You know, there’s so many different ways that things could happen that I think it makes it difficult. And then yesterday, the other manufacturer of mifepristone, GenBioPro, also filed suit against the FDA. So now we have, since Dobbs, like five different lawsuits related to mifepristone and three of them, post-Dobbs, are related to the FDA in particular. And I think it just gets very, very complicated to make a decision, even if ideologically some people might align with one way versus the other, given all of these different permutations and that we still have that Washington case that is attacking another part of this. So it’s just complicated to get people to do something. And the fact that this case has been moving so, so quickly.

Carey: Could we be in the same place on Friday? Could we get another stay? Could the justices certainly ask for more time, and are there any thoughts about the probability of that actually happening? Rachel, what are your thoughts?

Cohrs: I think they can do what they want.

Carey: That’s true.

Cohrs: They gave themselves time once more, and I think obviously there’s a benefit to having some certainty and predictability for people, for providers, but certainly they could stay again.

Carey: So, Sandhya, you just mentioned the Washington state case. So while this Texas ruling is before the Supreme Court, a federal district judge in Washington state issued a ruling in a separate case that instructed the FDA to not alter the current availability of the drug in 17 states and the District of Columbia. And as you just mentioned, a manufacturer of the generic version of the drug — the company’s name is GenBioPro; they make the generic version of mifepristone — they’re arguing that if the FDA implements a court order suspending approval of the drug, the agency would deprive the company of its rights to market the drug without due process of law. And as I understand, this company is a major manufacturer of the generic version of the drug, right? So let’s talk a bit more about this confusion of these split rulings. I mean, what is the public to make of it? What’s the reaction with facilities that are providing this medication or doctors who want to prescribe it or just the general public? The person who might be interested in this situation is very confused. I mean, talk a little bit about how people sort through it and what this means for them.

Raman: So the suit that was filed yesterday about the generic, they make two-thirds of the mifepristone that is used in the U.S. So if they were unable to be manufacturing theirs based on a ruling that only allowed the name-brand version of the drug, that’s a huge percentage of the market that is gone, and more than half of abortions are done through medication abortion. So that’s one thorn in it. And I think that another is that we have all of these states that have been stockpiling the drugs — several that have been, you know, in case they don’t know what is happening with the ruling. Washington is one of them. And there’s still not clarity depending on what happens with these cases of, you know, will they be able to use what that they have stockpiled? And then we have other states like New York and I think California that have been stockpiling misoprostol as another way to — in case there’s a court ruling that doesn’t go in their favor — to just give patients in their states access to medication abortion. I think that there are so many different permutations that it’s very difficult for even folks that are confident that the rule may go a different way to know what to predict, just because we’re in such uncertain territory, from all of the different former FDA officials that have said, “You know, this is a very different situation. We don’t even know, after decades of experience at the FDA, like, how this would play out, what it would mean, whether we’d have to pull everything off the market.” How it would play out, it’s just a lot of unknown territory given all of the different things going on.

Kenen: Well, also, whatever they do now isn’t necessarily the end of the story, right? I mean, if the court issues a stay, it will still go through the courts and it presumably ends up at the Supreme Court again. If they issue a stay pending full hearing of the case, it’ll be going on for months more. But either they issue a stay saying the 5th Circuit ruling, which did not totally — the lower federal court banned the use of the pill; the appeals court limited it to seven weeks instead of the FDA has ruled it’s for 10 weeks. So if they uphold the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, there would still be use, but it would be limited. If they put a stay saying, “Yes, it can stay legal in the states that allow it for now,” then it would still be legal in those states but we’d still be back discussing what is the Supreme Court going to do a couple of months from now.

Carey: And how — where is the drug industry on this? I mean, this would have sweeping ramifications.

Kenen: They’re horrified. One of you might know the number — was it like 250 companies signed the brief that you’re going to have a court decide what drug is safe and what drug is not safe, rather than the FDA? I mean, the pharmaceutical company fights with the FDA all the time, but they need the FDA and they know they need the FDA and they admit they need the FDA. You know, you have one voice in this country saying a drug is safe or a drug is not safe or a drug is safe under the following conditions.

Raman: There have been hundreds of the drug companies that have spoken out against it, and PhRMA [Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America] more recently also finally came out against it. It’s been pretty uniform in a way that I have not really seen in the past where there have been, you know, the drug companies, the various people that have been regulators, the folks that are in favor of abortion rights, then just advocates — and just very unified in this response.

Carey: Rachel, what is the impact of the drug industry’s weighing in in this manner? How could that shape the decision? Was there anything surprising in how they worked together on this? I know you’ve done some reporting on this area.

Cohrs: Yes. Yeah. So I think certainly them actually filing briefs with the court will kind of help drive home the ramifications of this, just on a much larger scale. I mean, we’re not just talking about abortion now. We’re talking about any medication that could be at all controversial. You know, we’re talking PrEP for HIV. You know, there are so many areas where companies genuinely are concerned about lawsuits and about judges who aren’t experts. So I think this uniform voice will drive home the larger impacts here beyond this one issue. And also, I think, the drug industry has significant resources to invest. And I think, it took a little while, but the trade groups PhRMA and BIO [Biotechnology Innovation Organization] have said that they are willing to invest, and they haven’t made any specific commitments, but certainly I think down the line there could be legal challenges. And now that they have put themselves out there, they certainly are a significant player in the space, with resources.

Raman: The drug industry is also a huge player in, you know, donating to various campaigns and lobbying on the Hill. And it’s definitely going to be — put increasingly different folks in a tight spot if they are receiving a lot of backing from the pharmaceutical industry and if they’ve spoken out in favor of restricting the drug. And it’ll be interesting to see kind of as it goes on what happens there with some of these folks.

Carey: Sure. Well that’s a perfect segue way because we have lawmakers on Capitol Hill are also weighing in on this. About 150 Republicans are urging the Supreme Court to uphold the 5th Circuit’s ruling, while more than 250 Democrats have urged the court to not prevent access to mifepristone. Are Republicans taking a political risk here speaking out? Because I know it’s been talked about on the podcast before, about the abortion rights opponents have some splits on how far to go on some of these restrictions on abortion. You know, Republicans didn’t really seem eager to engage when the decision came out, but now they are. What does that mean? What do you make of it?

Raman: We’ve had that delay first that, you know, a lot of Republicans did not even comment on the case, which was kind of interesting, given that, you know, after a lot of these decisions, we see a lot from both sides kind of weighing in. And I think when you look at some of these briefs, they say a lot of the similar talking points as before, which is something that you can kind of look to. But I mean, the conversation is still moving, even on the Hill. Yesterday, Robert Califf from the FDA was facing questions about mifepristone from different Republicans, from Cindy Hyde-Smith, who had agreed with the lower court decision, from Susan Collins, who was kind of against the decision as one of the Republicans who generally supports abortion rights. And I think it’ll be very interesting if this gets taken up by a committee that has jurisdiction over the FDA, which we have not really seen a commitment to. Energy and Commerce [Committee] Democrats have asked for something on this to come up. But, you know, under Republican leadership, I don’t know that that would necessarily happen. The only committee that is really committed to looking at this issue has been, like, Senate Judiciary, which with Democratic control is going to look a different way. And they don’t really have the jurisdiction over FDA in the same way as some of the other committees do. So I think that’ll be interesting to look at if that changes.

Kenen: There is a divide in the Republican Party about how far to go. I mean, some are for rape and incest exceptions, some are not. Some are for six weeks, some are for 15 weeks, some are for zero weeks. This is reflecting those divisions. It also depends on the individual lawmaker’s district. You know, if you come from an extremely conservative district and you are an anti-abortion absolutist, then you’re going to speak out on this. But we’ve noted they don’t really want to antagonize pharma either. So you’ve seen, I guess it’s 150ish — you haven’t seen all of them. It’s a complicated issue for some of them, given the competing interests, you know. Is abolishing all abortions in the United States of America your top goal? In which case you’re going to want to support the lower court. If you have a more nuanced view, where you’re worried about precedent for overriding the FDA, you have competing — I mean, there are very few abortion rights Republicans, but they don’t all want to draw the line in the same place.

Carey: So while we’re on the subject of Capitol Hill, let’s talk about the debt ceiling. We have a little bit of action there this week. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy unveiled his plan to raise the debt ceiling. McCarthy and many Republicans have said they don’t want to raise the debt ceiling without spending cuts. President Biden and many Democrats are pushing for a clean debt ceiling increase. So among its provisions, Speaker McCarthy’s plan would cut federal spending by roughly $130 billion, and that would take spending back to fiscal 2022 levels. Health-related provisions include new work requirements for Medicaid and food stamp recipients, and the package would also claw back unspent covid aid funds. And there’s a bit of a twist on the work requirement proposals of the past: States could opt to keep those that don’t comply with the work rules covered under Medicaid, keep them on the rolls. But if they do, the state would bear the full cost of that coverage and forgo the federal money for those enrollees, right? The proposal also requires states to make use of existing resources like payroll databases, state health and human service agencies, to verify compliance with a work rule when possible. There’s a lot to unpack here. It’s pretty clear that, I mean, House Democrats aren’t going to vote for this. Does the speaker even have enough votes in his own caucus to pass it? I think he can only lose like four.

Kenen: TBD. But I don’t think the conventional wisdom is that he has the votes. You know, it’s a starting offer, but they can change, you know, has to go Rules [Committee]. They’ll change — you know, they could change things.

Carey: It is a starting offer. But your vote is next week and it’s Thursday. OK. Rachel, what’s your take on this?

Cohrs: Yeah, I think it was a bit of a roller coaster this week, as some members of the Freedom Caucus were demanding wholesale repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act around midweek, and they certainly backed off from that, especially the health care portion. So I think that is worth noting, at least right now. Again, unclear if he has the votes, or if the speaker has the votes, and then obviously Senate Democrats aren’t going to go for it and President Biden isn’t going to go for this. So I think, like Joanne said, it is kind of an opening offer here. And again, there isn’t a lot on Medicare in here. So I think we just, you know, finally, after so much rhetoric and so much back-and-forth, have some sort of tangible starting point from Republicans here, which is significant.

Kenen: But, you know, as soon as they made that pledge that we’re not going to touch Medicare, meaning traditional Medicare actually, and we’re not going to touch Social Security, we all knew that, Oh, that means that it’s all going to go to Medicaid. So this is a big Medicaid hit. And work rules have been something the Republicans have embraced at least since the Reagan era, maybe even before, but certainly since the 1980s. A few states tried them or at least said they were going to impose them under the Obama administration. At that point, the administration didn’t approve them and the courts didn’t uphold them. But we have a different court now. So I think this court would uphold; that’s likely. But this is not acceptable for Democrats, nor is it meant to be.

Raman: And when we had the various states propose these and in some cases implement them during the Trump administration, every single one of them was struck down by the court once, sometimes twice. You know, we had Arkansas, we had New Hampshire, we had Kentucky, we had Michigan. Every single time the judge at hand was, you know, “This is going against the function of Medicaid,” which — historically we’ve had work requirements in some of the other programs, but the way the Medicaid statute is written, it has been difficult to find a way to keep those in place. So if they were able to get that past, I mean, even the House, which seems like is a, is a question mark, I mean — whatever could get through would absolutely face court battles from some of the same folks that challenged them during the Trump administration.

Kenen: But I think the only one that actually went into effect was Arkansas. And in addition to it being thrown out by a court, it also just didn’t work. The mechanism didn’t work. It became really hard for people. The verification that you’re working, which this proposal actually addresses, that Mary Agnes just alluded to that, the verification was extraordinarily cumbersome. I mean, you had like lots of poor people in Arkansas — and rural Arkansas don’t have access to Internet — and you only had a few hours a day where you could use the portal and you have to leave work to go to the local library to prove that you were working. I mean, it was just — forget the ideology of it — the mechanics didn’t work, and people were thrown off even though they were compliant. And but this [is] just like a deep philosophical divide between the two parties, and they have compromised, and back in the Clinton years they compromised on welfare, what’s now called TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families]. There’s work requirements for SNAP, for what we used to call food stamps. But Medicaid has been a red line for Democrats, that this is an entitlement based on health; it’s not like you deserve — some people deserve it and some people don’t. It’s been a philosophical, ideological, you know, something that Democrats feel very strongly about.

Cohrs: Oh, I just want to jump in on the covid money as well — much smaller deal, fewer impacts on patients — but it has been kind of interesting and over the last couple of weeks that the Biden administration has rolled out some new programs that cost quite a bit of money, as there’s this horizon, this call for Congress to claw back unspent covid funds. I mean, they’re spending $5 billion now on developing vaccines and therapeutics, $1 billion on vaccine access, when they said they didn’t have any money. So it’s just kind of interesting that, you know, when these funds are committed to a program legally, then Congress can’t claw them back. So I’m curious to see what else we’ll see as these negotiations solidify.

Carey: All right. We’ll keep our eye on it. And I want to just check in briefly on the Senate side. I know we’ve discussed these issues on the podcast before. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has been working on legislation focused on drug prices and pharmacy benefit managers. This morning we have a framework introduced from the Senate Finance Committee. It’s with Sen. Wyden, the chair from Oregon, who’s a Democrat, and Sen. Mike Crapo, Republican from Idaho, that also seeks to address PBMs in the prescription drug supply chain. We also have the moving, or maybe not moving, but introduce legislation, anything new there on insulin prices with Sen. Warnock and Sen. Kennedy to cap the out-of-pocket price at $35. Any movements there in the Senate, any insight you could offer?

Cohrs: On the Senate Finance [Committee] side, that is a very significant development, that they’ve decided to get in on the fun this week of putting together a package, just because their committees do have jurisdiction over so much federal spending. And Sen. Wyden has been involved in this issue. He’s put out — I found a package of bills from 2019, and, you know, he’s been on this issue a long time. So I think his team has proven they can craft big-picture, very impactful policy with the Inflation Reduction Act. So I think that’s certainly something to watch with that much federal spending on the line. And on insulin, you know, Sen. Schumer this week has committed to have some sort of insulin pricing provision in whatever package might come together — it’s still pretty amorphous — but it’s unclear what that’s going to look like. There is another proposal from Sen. Collins and Sen. Shaheen, two much more senior members of the caucus, and that mechanism works differently. For patients, it would look pretty similar. But on the back end, for insurers, for drugmakers, both of those programs would work differently. So they haven’t sorted that out yet. HELP hasn’t even picked a date for their hearing and formally announced it yet. So we are in early stages, but there’s certainly a lot swirling around.

Carey: Absolutely. And we’ll keep our eye on all of that as well. So I’d like to also chat a little bit about some ACA developments that happened this week. President Biden recently announced that hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children will be able to apply for Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance exchanges. This allows participants in the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, also known as DACA, to access government-funded health insurance programs. You can expect pushback from conservative leaders of states that have been reluctant to expand Medicaid, possibly also pushback from Republican members of the Hill on this provision. And then, in other ACA news, the administration has finalized new rules that are aimed at making it easier for consumers to sign up for ACA plans, in particular those who are losing their coverage through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, also known as CMS, will also give state marketplaces the option to hold a special enrollment period for people who lose their Medicaid or CHIP coverage. What could this possibly mean for enrollment in the program, right, to making it easier for DACA participants to enroll in the ACA or people losing their coverage through CHIP or Medicaid? I think it’s about 16 million people now in the program. Does this build more support for it? Are Republicans going to engage against it? Do they think that’s simply a losing battle because they’ve never agreed on an alternative?

Raman: I mean, right now, we’ve had historic levels of people in Medicaid and CHIP just because states have been unable to unenroll them from coverage during the public health emergency for covid. And now that states are starting to recheck their rolls and see who’s still eligible, who’s not eligible, we’ve been expecting just, you know, a big drop in different people that would be either getting uninsured or maybe moving to a different type of plan with a private or the exchanges. And I think it’s been something that, you know, states and the federal government have been working on for the entire time of just, you know, different ways to make sure that that drop-off in the number of uninsured folks doesn’t skyrocket as states are going through this process. And so I think the timing is important in that, you know, you’re trying to counteract the drop. And HHS [the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] has been touting, you know, the high levels of uptake in the ACA and just like the low uninsured rate and this has been something they’ve just kind of been pushing, you know, month after month. This has been something that has been like a big achievement for them. And so now really like push comes to shove to say that, you know, it doesn’t drop off dramatically if you want to continue touting some of these achievements and making sure that people don’t drop off just because the emergency is ending and that guaranteed coverage isn’t there.

Kenen: So there are multiple issues in the question that are exposed, the DACA, which —

Carey: Of course it can’t be just one question I have to ask four at once.

Kenen: The DACA, which is also known as the Dreamers, Biden is trying to cover them. Democrats have been trying to give them legal status and got nowhere. In fact, they’re probably further away from that than they were five or six years ago. But to get them health coverage is something the Democrats — it’s like the least they can do to this population. But I can’t imagine there’s not going to be a political and/or a legal fight from the states who are going to have to pay for their share of it, right? I mean, Medicaid is a state-federal joint expenditure, and the states that don’t want to cover these people will well resist or sue. Or, I mean, everything ends up in court; I would imagine this will, too, or baked into the debt ceiling — you know, one more thing to fight about with the debt ceiling. So that’s one issue. I mean, the other issue is this unwinding of this huge Medicaid population. Most of these people are going to be eligible for some kind of coverage. Some of them are still going to be eligible for Medicaid. Some of them are going to be eligible for very good deals for sort of low-income working people on the ACA. And some have jobs that they can get insured through — theirs or a partner or a family member. But really, the only ones who are ineligible for anything would be those in the remaining Medicaid gap states. But that’s like theoretically, if we did everything right, the only people that would be ineligible are the Medicaid gap population, which is now down to about 10 states, assuming North Carolina, you know, finalizes their approval or, you know, enacts their expansion. But like, that’s the perfect world, and we don’t live in a perfect world. I mean, some of these people are going to get lost in the shuffle. And in fact, maybe several million; their estimates are like maybe 6 million, you know, no one knows. But, you know, our health care system is complicated. You know, getting a letter in the mail saying, you know, “Sayonara, Medicaid,” is not all of them will know how to negotiate new coverage even when they’re eligible, and we’re going to have to do a really good job of helping them. And that has to be from the federal government, from the state governments, from the health system itself, from advocates, from Congress. You know, everyone’s going to have to pitch in to get these people what they’re eligible for. And I don’t see that as an overnight success story. I think that there are people who should be covered and can be covered who won’t be covered. Eventually we’ll probably catch up and most of them enrolled. But I think that some of them have periods of uninsurance.

Carey: It’s absolutely a major undertaking. I know we’ll all be watching closely. OK, that’s the news for this week. Now it’s time for our extra credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week and think you should read it too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We’ll post the links on our podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device.

Kenen: I actually want to read the first sentence of this piece. This is a guest essay in The New York Times by Amy Silverstein. She’s a heart transplant recipient. She’s, I guess, about 60 now, and she’s about to die, not because her heart, her transplanted heart is failing — she writes about how she kept that in pristine condition — but because she’s got cancer. And it’s called “My Transplanted Heart and I Will Die Soon,” and it begins, “Today, I will explain to my healthy transplanted heart why, in what may be a matter of days or weeks at best, she — well, we — will die.” And in addition to being just a heart-tugger, I did not know a lot of what she explores about transplant medicine, that we think of transplants as medical miracles — and they are; you know, she had like an extra 35 years of life — but they’re also, transplant medicine itself hasn’t really, according to what she writes, transplant medicine itself — the drugs, the care they get, these heavy-duty drugs haven’t improved in 40 years. While she has a healthy heart, she has metastatic lung cancer because of these drugs. The medical care around transplant can be quite dangerous. And I knew nothing about that, and I’ve covered health for a long time. So it’s a tragic story and it’s also a scientific failure or a medical system or a medical research failure story that I hope a lot of people who have the power to change it read.

Carey: Sandhya, what’s your extra credit?

Raman: So my extra credit is from ABC News. It’s called “Puerto Rico’s Water Supply Is Being Depleted, Contaminated by Manufacturing Industry on the Island, Experts Say.” It’s a triple byline from Jessie DiMartino, Lilia Geho, and Julia Jacobo. And I thought their story was really interesting because it looks at the effects of the manufacturing industry on the water supply in Puerto Rico. The manufacturing there is, in Puerto Rico, is really high because there used to be a tax incentive that’s now lapsed to create a huge boom in manufacturing in the ’60s and ’70s. And kind of looking at the impacts of that, and over time and to the environment, and pharma manufacturing in particular, is 65% of what has been the industrial groundwater withdrawals. So in areas that rely heavily on groundwater on an island, this is felt especially hard. And so they go through a lot of the implications of some of that and how the manufacturing affects it, especially in an island with a finite water supply.

Carey: Rachel.

Cohrs: Mine is, the headline is, “‘I Hate You, Kathie Lee Gifford!’ Ozempic Users Report Bizarre Dreams,” in The Wall Street Journal and by Peter Loftus. Our newsroom has been covering the weight loss drug explosion this year, and I think this story was just so colorful and just a great example of reporting on the side effects that emerge when so many people are interested or want to take a drug. And I think there is certainly a public service to people understanding what they’re getting into and just hearing from all sorts of people, because certainly there are agencies who are supposed to be doing that. But I think there’s also just a lot of buzz that’s fascinating. The writing was just so rich and bizarre. And yeah, it was a great read and a great illustration on it, too.

Carey: Well, speaking of weight loss and getting fat out of our bodies, my story is from The New York Times, called “A Beauty Treatment Promised to Zap Fat. For Some, It Brought Disfigurement,” by Anna Kodé, and I hope I’m pronouncing your name correctly. You might have heard or seen all these ads about the treatment called CoolSculpting. It uses a device on a targeted part of the body to freeze fat cells. Patients typically undergo multiple treatments in the same area, and in successful cases, the cells die and the body absorbs them. “But for some people,” Anna writes, “the procedure results in severe disfigurement. The fat can grow, harden and lodge in the body, sometimes even taking on the shape of the device’s applicator.” The manufacturer says this is a rare side effect, but a Times investigation that drew on internal documents, lawsuits, medical studies, and interviews indicates the risk to patients may be considerably higher. So that’s our show. As always, if you enjoyed the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left a review; that helps other people find us too. Special thanks, as always, to our ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. And as always, you can email us with your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me @maryagnescarey. Rachel?

Cohrs: @rachelcohrs.

Carey: Joanne?

Kenen: @JoanneKenen.

Carey: Sandhya.

Raman: @SandhyaWrites.

Carey: We’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, 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).

In 2014, Lisa French had spinal surgery. Before the operation, she was told she would have to pay $1,337 in out-of-pocket costs and that her insurance would cover the rest. However, the hospital ended up sending French a bill for $229,000. When she didn’t pay, it sued her.

The case went all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court. In this episode of “An Arm and a Leg,” host Dan Weissmann finds out how the court ruled and how the decision is reshaping the fine print on hospital bills in ways that could cost patients a lot of money.

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

Afi Yellow-Duke
Editor

Click to open the Transcript

Transcript: A $229,000 Medical Bill Goes to Court

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–

Lisa French was a clerk for a trucking company in Denver. She’d been in a car crash, and her doctor told her that to keep her spine stable, she ought to get surgery.

She asked the folks at the hospital what it was gonna cost her, out of pocket. They ran her insurance and told her: Your end is going to be one thousand, three hundred thirty-six dollars, and ninety cents.

She said, thanks.

Then, she and her husband sat down at their kitchen table and talked it over: They had a rainy-day fund. A thousand dollars they’d socked away, they kept it at home, in cash. Were they ready to spend it all for this? 

They decided they were, and Lisa went to the hospital with a thousand dollars cash. 

She had the surgery, it went fine. The hospital had been expecting about 55 thousand dollars from Lisa’s insurance. They actually got more like 74 thousand.

But they decided that wasn’t enough. They decided they wanted their full sticker price: 303 thousand dollars. So they billed Lisa French for the rest: 229 thousand dollars.

And when they didn’t get it, they sued her.

Lisa French had her surgery in 2014. The court case finally got resolved last year, in 2022, by the Colorado Supreme Court.

If you’ve been listening to this show for a while, you probably remember: We have gotten VERY interested in understanding, when we get a wild medical bill, what legal rights do we have? How can we use those rights to fight back? Even on a small scale, like in small claims court? 

And even though Lisa French’s case is a LONG way from small claims court, it has a LOT to teach us about these questions.

This is An Arm and a Leg, a show about why health care costs so freaking much, and what we can maybe 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.

And I should say upfront: We won’t be hearing from Lisa French directly.

Her case made a lot of headlines– in 2018, when a jury heard it, in YEAR when an appeals court overturned the trial court, and last year when the state supreme court made its ruling.

Not in the kind of detail that we’re gonna go into, but come on: Who can resist the headline?

Male Anchor: Well, tonight we have a story of David versus Goliath. David being a woman who needed spinal surgery in 2014 Goliath, the hospital that charged her more than $200,000 to do it.

Dan: So over the years, a lot of reporters wanted a sound bite from Lisa French. Her attorney used to let her know when there was an inquiry, and she’d say yes or no.

Eventually, she told her lawyer: Don’t even tell me when they call anymore. I just want to live my life.

Fair enough.

So here’s who we’ve got.

Ted Lavender: I’m Ted Lavender. I’m an attorney in Atlanta, Georgia. I’ve been practicing law for 26 years,

Dan: And he spent several of those years representing Lisa French.

It’s probably worth answering one question up front: If Lisa French had to empty her family’s rainy-day fund to pay the hospital a thousand bucks, who’s paying the lawyer from Atlanta?

The insurance from her job. Which had played a role in starting the whole mess.

Ted Lavender: the company that she worked for had a health benefits plan that was slightly different than what you might call run of the mill health insurance.

Dan: It worked this way: They weren’t in-network with any hospitals. Instead, they’d just take whatever bill any hospital sent, make their own evaluation of what a fair price would be, and send the hospital a check.

It’s a somewhat unusual model– one survey says about 2 percent of employers use a plan like this– but Ted Lavender says it often works.

Ted Lavender: a very large percentage of the time , the hospital would accept the check and no one would hear anything more from the hospital, which in legal parlance would mean acceptance

Dan: And as a backstop, in case there was any trouble, the health plan would send a lawyer. That’s Ted.

And here’s what happened that led to all the trouble in Lisa French’s case: Whoever ran her insurance card at the hospital, they didn’t read it very carefully.

If they had, they would’ve seen a little logo under the insurance-company name that said, “provider only” — that is: This plan only has doctors and nurses and other PROVIDERS in network.

With hospitals, there’s no network, no “in-network rate.” We’ll just send a check for what we think is right.

The same health-benefits company has a different plan, one that does have a hospital network. You know how it is. Insurance companies, a million different plans, every one its own snowflake.

The hospital mistook Lisa French’s snowflake for another one, and that’s how they came up with that estimate.

Ted Lavender: based on their calculation, they expected to collect a total of

$56,000, the 1,336 from Ms. French and the remainder from her health plan.

Dan: And they presumably would’ve been happy with 56 thousand. But they got more. They got about 75 thousand dollars.

But once they got it, they wised up to the mistake they had made about Lisa French’s insurance. They had no agreement with the insurance plan to accept 56 thousand.

So, they decided: There’s no reason for us not to charge our full sticker price here.Three hundred and three thousand dollars.

So Lisa French had been expecting a bill for three hundred thirty-six dollars and ninety cents. That’s the difference between what she’d been quoted and the thousand dollars she’d paid in advance. But the bill she got wasn’t what she expected.

Ted Lavender: it turned out to be a whopper of a bill. We ended up with an itemized bill that showed every line item for every charge that totaled this

$303,000

And then at the bottom was, you know, subtracting the thousand she paid, subtracting the money the insurance paid, leaving a balance of 229,000 and change

Dan: Of course, Lisa French did not have 229 thousand dollars, or anything like it.

Ted Lavender: Eventually she got a visit from the sheriff who served her with a lawsuit and she was sued for that $229,000.

Dan: And that’s where Ted Lavender entered the scene.

The jury trial in 2018 took six days. As Ted Lavender says, it wasn’t exactly a splashy murder trial, in terms of drama.

Ted Lavender: this was a six day trial involving hospital billing. So, you know, there was no murder weapon. There was no aha, big, gotcha moment that was really exciting.

Dan: But Ted Lavender did his best. Like one time, when he got a hospital executive on the witness stand.

To stabilize Lisa French’s spine, surgeons had implanted 13 pieces of metal into her body. So Ted Lavender had the hospital executive walk the jury through the price for each of those bits of metal. Or actually, the prices..

Ted Lavender: And I first showed him the itemized bill and asked him to identify what they charged for these 13 pieces of hardware .

I had given him sort of an oversized calculator that was sitting there in front of him on the witness stand, admittedly, for some dramatic effect

And through adding these up on the itemized bill, he arrived at the number which was $197,000.

Dan: A hundred and ninety-seven thousand dollars. So that’s about two-thirds of the three hundred and three thousand dollars the hospital is trying to charge Lisa French.

And then the next thing I did was I handed in the 13 invoices that we had received from the hospital,

Dan: That is, Ted handed the guy the invoices the hospital had received — and paid — when it bought those bits of metal..

Ted Lavender: and I asked him to add up and tell this jury what did the hospital pay for these 13 pieces of hardware.

He’s adding, and he’s adding and he’s punching in numbers, and he’s turning pages and he’s adding, and he’s adding with each addition, with each plus the jury seemed to ease a little closer up to the front of their chair, and ultimately he arrived at the total, which was $31,000 and change.

Dan: So the hospital’s charging like six and a half times what they paid. And that’s two thirds of this 300 thousand dollar bill.

Ted Lavender: It just, you know, the jury seemingly did not like that.

Dan: So that was a good moment for Lisa French’s side. I mean getting the jury mad at the other side, that’s a win.

And the big calculator wasn’t Ted Lavender’s only visual: He also had a giant post-it note, where he wrote down, in magic marker, all the different prices the hospital accepted for the surgery, depending on who was paying.

Ted Lavender: and we got these numbers from the hospital, they would’ve accepted $146,000 from private insurance.

Dan: That’s less than half of what they were trying to charge Lisa French. And they accepted less than that — a LOT less — from government-funded insurance, like Medicare, Medicaid, or Tricare, which covers folks in the military.

Ted Lavender: The average of what they would’ve accepted for these. Procedures that Ms. French had were $63,199. Again, Ms. French and her insurance company combined paid almost $75,000.

Dan: You can hear that post-it rustling around. It was a good prop, he’s held onto it. So, he’d shown the jury that the hospital charged a HUGE markup, and that what they were suing Lisa French for was way, way more than they charged anybody else.

On the hospital’s side, they were like, Yeah, but this is our actual sticker price. And Lisa French signed a piece of paper that said she would pay “all charges of the hospital.”

So the hospital was like, yep, and these are our charges. That 303 thousand dollars, it comes from a list we keep. It’s called the chargemaster. That’s what Lisa French was signing up for.

And this became something the jury had to decide:

When Lisa French signed a piece of paper saying she’d pay “all charges of the hospital” — was she specifically agreeing to pay what was on the chargemaster?

And here’s one thing that might’ve made jurors a little skeptical on that score: The hospital never showed that chargemaster list to Lisa French. Not before her surgery, not after it. They said it was a trade secret.

Ted Lavender: they went all the way through trial. Never producing it though. We, we, we asked at the very beginning, once the lawsuit was filed, , basically you get to ask questions. Give me this information, give me information that supports your case or helps my case.

And we ask specifically for the charge master and they refuse to produce it on the basis that it was confidential and proprietary.

Dan: By withholding that list, the hospital may have helped Ted Lavender make his argument: How could Lisa French have known what she was signing up for, if she couldn’t see the prices?

Ted Lavender: if we can’t get it through our subpoena power, how in the world would Lisa Friendship been able to use it by, had she asked?

And admittedly she didn’t ask for it, but if she had, surely they wouldn’t have given it to her either.

Dan: In the end, the jury agreed: Lisa French had not specifically agreed to pay the hospital’s chargemaster prices.

And the only other alternative was: She agreed to pay something reasonable.

The jury decided she owed the hospital seven hundred seventy six dollars and 74 cents

Basically, that’s the three hundred and some left over from the original estimate, plus some extra — because she wound up staying in the hospital one night more than expected: She owed a fee for late check-out.

Of course the hospital did not take that lying down. They appealed the outcome– and won! Ted Lavender appealed that decision, which is how the case ended up in front of the Colorado Supreme Court.

We’ve actually got tape of those proceedings. They’re kinda juicy. Plus the outcome, and why it matters for the rest of us. That’s right after this.

This episode of An Arm and a Leg is produced in partnership with KFF Health News–formerly known as Kaiser Health News.

They’re a national newsroom producing in-depth journalism about health care in America. We’ll have more information about KFF Health News at the end of this episode.

OK, so Lisa French’s case was headed to the Colorado Supreme Court.

And here’s the big issue. Remember how the jury found that Lisa French hadn’t actually agreed to pay the hospital’s chargemaster price, the three hundred and three thousand dollars?

The hospital argued: The jury never should’ve been asked to consider that question.

The law — legal precedent — makes it open and shut: The appeals court had agreed. And it had cited other cases from courts around the country.

So when the hospital’s lawyer, Mike McConnell, got up to address the Supreme Court, he led with those citations.

Mike McConnell: All of the questions that you have raised have been addressed in more than a dozen cases around the country. carefully and thoroughly.

Justice Richard L. Gabriel: Well, let me push back on you. Good morning to you, Mr. McConnell.

Mike McConnell: Good morning.

Dan: This is Justice Richard L Gabriel, stepping right in. He notes that these dozen other decisions all rest on one original case, from 2008, where a court had said: We can’t intervene in health care pricing. Courts shouldn’t try. Health care is too complicated.

Justice Gabriel wasn’t convinced.

Justice Richard L. Gabriel: I guess the question I have is why, you know? I, you know, we may not be the smartest people in the world, but this is a contract and why should the hospital industry— different than any other industry on the planet —have different rules for contract principles?

Dan: The hospital lawyer argued that hospitals couldn’t predict everything that would happen in a patient’s care. In fact, the hospital can’t even control it: Only physicians can decide what treatment to order.

Mike McConnell: You can, uh, I guess imagine that hospitals ought to be able to predict in advance what a particular physician is going to order for a particular patient. Um, and, uh, perhaps, you know, obviously you feel that is the way it ought to be. It is not the way it is, but now

Justice Melissa Hart: Mr. Mr. McConnell, I’m sorry, to interrupt…

Dan: Here’s justice Melissa Hart breaking in

Justice Melissa Hart: …the hospital did provide an estimate in this case. They did calculate what they thought this was going to cost and tell her that. So it is, it seems false to me that they can’t do it. Of course, they can’t predict with absolute certainty. In this case, she had the extra night stay in the hospital and she paid for that. But they can predict in a case like this, and they do.

Dan: The justices didn’t seem super-persuaded by McConnell’s response to that. And that left one more big question in front of the justices.

When Lisa French signed a document promising to pay “all charges,” was she definitely agreeing to pay three hundred and three thousand dollars? Or 229 after insurance.

The appeals court found that the chargemaster rate — the 303 thousand — had been “incorporated by reference” to the document she’d signed, officially called the “hospital services agreement.”

The supreme court wasn’t convinced. Here’s Justice Richard Gabriel again.

Justice Richard L. Gabriel: There’s no reference to the charge master on the face of the hospital services agreement.

How could she have assented to something she never even knew existed?

Dan: And here’s how the hospital’s lawyer responded.

Mike McConnell: When she read the provision, all charges not otherwise paid by insurance. She understood that the hospital charges would, she was responsible for paying the hospital charges that her insurance company did it,

Justice Richard L. Gabriel: Whatever it was. They could have charged her a billion dollars and she’s your position to be she’s bound because she agreed. All charges means all charges.

Dan: Huh! There wasn’t a real comeback to that.

The Supreme Court ruled against the hospital, unanimously. Specifically, they ruled that the chargemaster– the 303 thousand dollars– had not been “incorporated by reference” to the piece of paper Lisa French had signed.

She didn’t know those chargemaster list prices even existed. How could she agree to pay them?

So that meant, the court ruled that, quote, “the hospital services agreements left the price term open.”

Which is language that may ring a bell, if you’ve been listening to this show. It’s a legal principle — a bedrock of contract law:

How the law treats an open-price contract — a contract that doesn’t specify a price term.

Here’s a refresher on that principle from Ted Lavender.

Ted Lavender: if you go to McDonald’s and order a, a quarter pounder with cheese and you know, value meal number three, they tell you the price and that is the price that you have to pay. And then they give you your meal.

You enter that contract with an actual price term

Dan: But you can also enter an open-price contract — a contract without a price term.

Ted Lavender: if you have a contract without a price term, without a specific price in it, then the law infer into that contract a reasonable price.

Dan: In other words, a contract with the price term OPEN is not a blank check. I don’t have to pay whatever number the other side makes up.

And that’s what the Colorado Supreme Court found here.

They ruled that, quote, “principles of contract law can certainly be applied to hospital-patient contracts.” They say, a court may have ruled otherwise in 2008, and other courts may have cited that opinion. We disagree.

The Colorado Supreme Court is saying, even in health care, when no price is specified– when the price term is open– you have the right to a reasonable price.

Yes!

And that’s why Lisa French’s case is so interesting to us, here on this show.

Because we’ve talked here about using this legal principle to fight back against outrageous bills.

We’ve heard from one guy, Jeffrey Fox, who actually took a hospital to small claims court to enforce his right to a reasonable price. And won.

We’ve heard from a listener who tried and failed, but said, more of us should try this.

And this Colorado decision seems like good news for anybody interested in doing something like that.

But honestly, it also raises a few concerns that I had not known about before. First:

Well, there ARE all those other cases out there, in other states, that follow the 2008 case, the one that says health care is too complicated for courts to get into.

And yeah, here’s Colorado saying, “No it isn’t.”

But courts in other states aren’t bound by Colorado’s decision. Hm. And second: there’s also something the Colorado court DIDN’T decide:

What if the paper Lisa French signed had specified, “I agree to pay the hospital’s CHARGEMASTER rates?” Could she be required to pay them then? Even if they were a billion dollars?

In their decision, The Colorado court wrote that the chargemaster rates are “increasingly arbitrary” and “inflated” and “have lost any direct connection to hospitals actual cost.”

So Ted Lavender thinks they might’ve said, No, we can’t be held to a billion dollars, just by adding the word “chargemaster.”

Ted Lavender: I think they would’ve answered that. No, but they did not come right out and actually answer that.

Dan: Because they didn’t HAVE to answer that question.

Ted Lavender: Courts routinely, in fact, it’s almost an objective of appeals courts. They answer as few a number of questions as possible to get to an answer. ,

Dan: So the Colorado court simpley ruled that in Lisa French’s case, the chargemaster rates weren’t “incorporated by reference” into papers she signed.

Those papers didn’t didn’t mention the chargemaster at all– and the hospital kept that chargemaster as a trade secret. Open, shut.

But… hospitals aren’t supposed to keep those rates secret anymore. For the last couple of years, thanks to an executive order from the Trump administration, federal rules have required them to post their chargemaster to the internet.

And so I had all that in mind when I heard from a listener in Atlanta.

Cindi Gatton: my name is Cindy Gatton and I’ve been an independent patient advocate for 11 years now.

Dan: Cindi’s job is helping people deal with medical bills, but she had actually written to me about her experience as a patient.

Before a medical appointment, she got the usual forms online, including one for “Patient Financial Agreement and Responsibilities”

Cindi Gatton: so I thought, you know what? I’m gonna print it and just see exactly what it says. And I’m reading through the thing it says, patient understands and agrees that he, she will be charge. The Piedmont Healthcare Standard charge master rates for all services not covered by a payer or that are self-pay.

I’ve never seen that before, and it shocked me that there was a reference to charge master rates in the financial disclosure.

Dan: And Cindi has been dealing with medical bills full-time for a decade. She’s seen a lot. So when she says it’s new, and that it’s shocking, that seems worth noting.

Cindi Gatton: it just feels wrong to me. It feels really wrong because it, it reminds me of, you know, you, you go to a website and they give you their terms and conditions. Nobody reads those. I don’t read them. You click yes so that you can move on with what it is you wanna do, which is to get care, to be seen by the doctor to, you know, have your procedure.

And I don’t know this, this feels, um, it feels manipulative to me

Dan: Yeah, and to me, it feels ominous. Like lawyers who work for hospitals have been paying attention to the Lisa French decision and thinking:

There’s a wedge here maybe we could exploit. Like, if we get you to sign a document that says “chargemaster” on it, we’re getting you to sign away your right to a reasonable price. After all, the court in Colorado didn’t come out and say that wouldn’t be kosher.

So, where I’m landing at the end of this story is: I’ve got a couple big homework assignments:

First, if I’m interested in seeing how we can use our legal rights to fight back against outrageous, unreasonable bills — and I am —

I need to learn more about which states recognize our rights to a reasonable price in health care, and which ones … maybe don’t. I’m on it, and if you’ve got any tips, please bring them.

That’s the first assignment, and for the second, I’d love your help: How many hospitals are using this “chargemaster” language these days in those financial responsbility documents they ask us to sign?

Do me a favor: See if you can get a copy of that document from any hospital system or doctor group where you get seen. And send me a copy of it?

Redact anything you need to. And also know: we’re not aiming to share this with anybody outside our reporting team.

Here’s what happened when I tried this.

A hospital where I get seen uses a portal called MyChart– a lot of hospitals use it. I just logged on to MyChart there, and I did a little digging around. I found a link to something called “My Documents.” And I found a form there called Universal Consent.”

It has stuff about financial responsibility.

It doesn’t mention chargemaster rates. But it’s a year old. It also says it’s expired.

And here’s an idea I got from Cindi, which I’m gonna try– and which seems worth passing around.

When Cindi found that chargemaster language in the document from her Hospital, here’s what she did. She printed it out and changed it:

Cindi Gatton: what I did is instead of the standard charge master rates, I drew a line through it and I wrote in two x Medicare rates.

Dan: In other words, instead of saying “I’ll pay the chargemaster rates,” it says, “I’ll pay two times the Medicare rate.”

We’ve heard about this strategy before, from former ProPublica reporter Marshall Allen, who wrote about it in his book, “Never Pay the First Bill.”

Here’s the rationale. Medicare pays less than most commercial insurance; hospitals say that at least sometimes they lose money on Medicare. Doubling it seems … generous enough. But it also sets a limit.

So that’s what Cindi wrote on her printout.

Cindi Gatton: I have been taking it with me when I go to be seen that if they ask me for the document that I can say, you know, here it is.

Dan: So far, she says, nobody’s asked for it.

And, I don’t think anybody will be confused, but just to make sure, I’ll say: This isn’t legal advice. I’m not a lawyer. Cindi’s not a lawyer.

She’s just a person going to the doctor, doing her best not to leave too many openings where she could get really screwed. And I’m gonna try following her example.

And I’ve got another request for you: If you try this trick of printing the thing out, exxing out the chargemaster language and writing 2 x medicare rates– LET ME KNOW WHAT HAPPENS, OK?

The place to do all this is on our website at arm and a leg show dot com, slash contact. That’s arm and a leg show dot com, slash, contact.

You are this show’s secret weapon. You’re our eyes and ears. Cindi Gatton’s a listener who got in touch.

How did I first learn about Lisa French’s case? Email from a listener. [Thank you, Terry N, for that note last year! Took us a minute, but we got to this.]

Thank you for listening. You absolutely rule. I’ll catch you soon.

Till then, take care of yourself.

This episode of An Arm and a Leg was produced by me, Dan Weissmann, with help from Emily Pisacreta, and edited by Afi Yellow-Duke.

Daisy Rosario is our consulting managing producer. Adam Raymonda is our audio wizard. Our music is by Dave Winer and Blue Dot Sessions.

Gabrielle Healy is our managing editor for audience. She edits the First Aid Kit Newsletter.

Bea Bosco is our consulting director of operations. Sarah Ballema is our operations manager.

An Arm and a Leg is produced in partnership with KFF Health News–formerly known as Kaiser 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.

And yes, you did hear the name Kaiser in there, and no: KFF isn’t affiliated with the health care giant Kaiser Permanente. 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 editorial liaison to this show.

Thanks to Public Narrative — That’s a Chicago-based group that helps journalists and nonprofits tell better stories– for serving as our fiscal sponsor, allowing us to accept tax-exempt donations. You can learn more about Public Narrative at www dot public narrative dot org.

And thanks to everybody who supports this show financially.

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

Thank you!

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

To keep in touch with “An Arm and a Leg,” subscribe to the newsletter. You can also follow the show on Facebook and 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, 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).

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 abortion pill mifepristone is now ground zero in the abortion debate. Late Wednesday night, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals said the drug should remain on the market but under restrictions on distribution that were in effect before 2016, which ban prescribing by mail or by telemedicine. The restrictions would make it even more difficult for patients in states where abortion is illegal or widely unavailable.

The decision comes in response to a ruling last week out of Texas, where a federal judge, as was widely expected, found that the FDA should not have approved the drug more than 22 years ago and ordered it, effectively, unapproved.

Complicating matters further still, in a separate case filed by 18 attorneys general in states where abortion is largely legal, last week a federal district judge in Washington state ordered the FDA not to reinstate any of the old restrictions.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Victoria Knight of Axios, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@Shefalil

Read Shefali's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• A late-night decision by the appeals court preserves access to mifepristone while the legal battle continues. But it also resurrects outdated limitations on the drug, meaning mifepristone can be used only up to seven weeks into a pregnancy, among other restrictions.
• While it is expected that the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately decide the drug’s fate, some providers and state officials are rushing to stockpile it. Cutting off access to the abortion pill puts extra pressure on clinics in states where abortion remains legal, which are also serving women from so-called prohibition states and could see an influx of patients as mifepristone becomes difficult — or impossible — to get.
• Republicans largely have remained quiet about the ruling overturning mifepristone’s FDA approval. While many in the party support banning the drug, they likely recognize the political risks of broadcasting that stance. Meanwhile, the Biden administration moved to strengthen privacy protections for patients and providers related to abortion, offering some reassurance to those who fear they could be prosecuted under their home state laws for seeking abortions elsewhere.
• As Southern states have whittled away at abortion access, Florida, with its 15-week abortion ban, had emerged as a hub for patients across the region. This week the state moved to restrict the procedure to six weeks, a change that could send many patients scrambling north to states like Virginia and New York for care. And in Idaho, a new law makes “abortion trafficking” — or transporting a minor to have an abortion without parental consent — a crime.
• Congress is exploring new drug pricing measures, particularly aimed at increasing transparency around pharmacy benefit managers and capping insulin costs. Lawmakers are also watching the approach of the debt ceiling threshold; in the mix of budgetary pressure valves are Medicaid and, potentially, work requirements to receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits.
• Congress continues to show little appetite for addressing a different, intensifying public health crisis: gun violence. A new poll from KFF shows startlingly high numbers of Americans — especially people of color — have directly experienced gun violence and live with that threat every day.

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

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “To Comply With a New Sesame Allergy Law, Some Businesses Add — Sesame,” by Karen Weese.

Shefali Luthra: KFF Health News’ “For Uninsured People With Cancer, Securing Care Can Be Like Spinning a Roulette Wheel,” by Charlotte Huff.

Victoria Knight: The Washington Post’s “Research With Exotic Viruses Risks a Deadly Outbreak, Scientists Warn,” by David Willman and Joby Warrick.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: NBC News’ “Conspiracy Theorists Made Tiffany Dover Into an Anti-Vaccine Icon. She’s Finally Ready to Talk About It,” by Brandy Zadrozny.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Confusing Fate of the Abortion Pill

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: The Confusing Fate of the Abortion PillEpisode Number: 293Published: April 13, 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 at KFF Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We are taping this week on Thursday, April 13, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast —really fast this week — and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. We are joined today by video conference by Victoria Knight of Axios.

Victoria Knight: Good morning.

Rovner: Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, Julie.

Rovner: And Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Shefali Luthra: Hello.

Rovner: Well, no interview this week, but spring is busting out all over with health news, so we will get right to it. We will begin in Texas with that court case that we’ve been saying for the last few weeks we hadn’t gotten a decision in. Well, we got a decision last Friday night around dinnertime and then very early this morning — that’s Thursday — we got an appeals court decision, too. But let’s take them one at a time. Last Friday night, in an opinion that was shocking but not surprising, as many people put it, Trump-appointed federal District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk effectively rolled back the Food and Drug Administration’s 22-plus-year-old approval of mifepristone; that’s the first of two pills used for medication abortion early in pregnancy. Literally within the hour, federal District Judge Thomas Rice in Spokane, Washington, ruled in a separate case — brought by a group of about a dozen and a half state attorneys general — basically the opposite, ordering the FDA not to alter the current availability of the drug. Judge Kacsmaryk in Texas very kindly stayed his stay until this Friday to allow the Biden administration to appeal to the also very conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. And in the wee hours of today, Thursday, an appeals court panel ruled that, while this lawsuit proceeds, mifepristone can continue to be sold, but only under the extremely onerous restrictions that were in effect until 2016. Shefali, where does that leave us? It’s kind of a mess, isn’t it?

Luthra: It is a huge mess, and the implications will be really significant. In particular, the 2016 restrictions on mifepristone don’t allow telemedicine. You have to go in person to a doctor to get the medication, and you can only use it up to seven weeks of pregnancy, when all of the evidence we have, including from the World Health Organization, says 10 weeks, sometimes maybe even 11. And I mean, we know realistically that people are taking mifepristone far later in pregnancy now because they can’t access legal abortion. And what this is going to do if it takes effect is it’s going to put a real strain on abortion clinics in states that have become destinations, right? The ones that are seeing so many out-of-state patients that largely do medication abortions because it’s easier, it’s faster, it pays a little bit better — all of these reasons that you do it —and that have really come to rely on telemedicine: Either they will have to take much longer to do this process and only do it for a handful of the patients they’re seeing, or they’ll switch to what we’ve talked about before, the misoprostol-only regimen, which is more painful, which is less effective. Still very good at terminating a pregnancy, but has a higher failure rate. And what clinics have told me is very often they expect that patients, when they hear that these are their options, will opt for a procedural abortion instead because that they know will absolutely work and they have to go home. They don’t worry about coming back to the clinic and worrying that they need an abortion again.

Karlin-Smith: I just want to put in the caveat that, you know, off-label use, which is where doctors prescribe a drug for use not approved for FDA, is something they do have sort of the discretion to do in practice of medicine once the product’s available. So the rollback is significant, but practically a lot of doctors will have the flexibility to still treat patients up to the longer timeframe. And people have pointed out this morning that, actually, many doctors were doing that prior to FDA formally expanding the approval.

Luthra: And to your point, many states have been stocking up on mifepristone in particular, and so have many abortion clinics, and they plan to use it as long as they can. The real challenge, I think, will be if there are supply issues at some point or other sorts of decisions from the Supreme Court, etc., or enforcement actions that essentially don’t allow telemedicine anymore.

Rovner: What it looks like the 5th Circuit has done is made it much harder for people in states where there are abortion bans to go to other states or to not go to another state but get the abortion pill, because they’ve banned it by mail; they’ve basically stopped in its tracks what we’ve been talking about for weeks — the ability of pharmacies to start to distribute it — because until 2016 you had to go — the doctor had to physically hand you the pill, which is what we are back to, and there have to be three visits in order to complete a medication abortion. These were all sort of the pre-2016 requirements. And the big question, though, is in Washington state, the requirement was that the FDA not change any of the relaxed restrictions. And now the 5th Circuit has said, yes, you will. So this still is on a fast track to the Supreme Court, right?

Luthra: It feels very like this is going to be decided by the Supreme Court. I mean, I wouldn’t be surprised if we hear about an appeal today. I wouldn’t be surprised if we hear about it tomorrow. It feels like really this could have changed between us taping and the podcast releasing.

Rovner: I think that’s entirely possible. So one of the things we thought Judge Kacsmaryk might do was order the FDA to basically restart its approval process for mifepristone, since his reasoning for rescinding essentially the drug’s approval is that the FDA violated its own procedures. Ironically, this decision came in a week when the FDA did withdraw the approval of a drug, a medication to prevent preterm birth called Makena. Sarah, what’s this drug and why is the FDA pulling it off the market? And this is how it’s supposed to work, right?

Karlin-Smith: Yes — supposed to work maybe is a stretch, depending on how some people felt about Makena; they felt it took way too long for FDA to withdraw it. So two sides of a coin, I suppose. But after a very long process, FDA finally pulled a drug that is given to women with the idea that it might help them deliver later, once their baby was full term, and prevent complications that come from having a premature birth. Unfortunately, over the years, as more clinical research was done on the drug, it appeared that it was not actually doing that. And as like all drugs, there are some side effects. And FDA basically ended up deciding, you know, absent any benefit, all you have is risk and this drug should not be pulled off the market. So it was finally pulled off the market after quite a lengthy process this week, right? It was still this week, or was it — no, it was last week.

Rovner: I think it was last week.

Karlin-Smith: Time. Time —

Rovner: Time is a very flat circle right now.

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, and so unfortunately it was really the only approved product that could possibly prevent preterm birth. And FDA really tried to recognize that and understand that people would be frustrated without options. But they tried to really emphasize the point that having an ineffective option is not the answer to that problem. The answer there is sort of push for more research on other products or even on this product to figure out if there’s a population of women it might benefit.

Rovner: So I wanted to mention that, because obviously the mifepristone ruling has the impact to affect much, much more than just abortion drugs. Individual drug companies are, to use the vernacular, freaking out about the idea that they could spend millions of dollars to shepherd a drug through clinical trials and the FDA approval process, only to see it banned because some small group of people object to it for some non-medical reason. Sarah, you cover the FDA. Is this freakout warranted right now?

Karlin-Smith: I do think most people think it is. And, you know, even in my preliminary look at what the 5th Circuit did this morning, I think that freakout is still going to continue because they seem to still give like this wide breadth that would allow many people to have the ability to challenge FDA approval decisions for any drug and then let judges weigh in who may not have the expertise and based on the science and all that other stuff that FDA has. So I think as this case has proceeded there’s still this underlying threat to the FDA’s authority and how they make decisions. Again, in the Texas case, he wasn’t trying to push it back to FDA and say, “OK, FDA, you go review this drug and decide again whether it needs to do it,” and then, you know, set them up for a Makena-like process where they would have to go through it. You know, they were trying to fast-track and overrule FDA’s authority. And if you read some of the details of the brief, you can really understand why it freaks out pharma and the FDA so much, because you can just tell how little the judge gets about how drugs are approved, the science, the regulatory process, and so forth.

Rovner: And basically that you have judges who are making medical and scientific decisions for which they are observably not qualified.

Karlin-Smith: Right, and I mean if nothing else industries likes stability, they like predictability, so there’s just this element of incredible unpredictability when you would have all these judges and potential legal cases throughout the country that would make it hard for them to deal with — and figuring out how to defend their products.

Rovner: So the FDA is obviously in an impossible situation here. They cannot satisfy both the Washington decision and the Court of Appeals decision because one says you can’t roll it back and one says you have to roll it back. Do we have any idea what the FDA is going to do here?

Luthra: I don’t know that we do. I mean, the Biden administration has said that they will follow the court orders, but the court orders are in conflict. So it seems like there should be some more clarity, perhaps, that we get. We, as of taping, haven’t gotten any statement from the president or the vice president or HHS, so we’ll keep an eye out and see if they have even just words of wisdom to offer about what this means or how they feel about the decision. But at this point, a lot is still quite confusing.

Rovner: So the Biden administration did take other action on abortion this week, in some separate steps. It announced Wednesday a series of new privacy protections for women and providers seeking or giving reproductive health care. How big a deal are these new rules, which sort of expand the HIPAA privacy rules? And why did it take them almost a year to do this? Hadn’t they been talking about this like right after the Dobbs ruling?

Luthra: They had been talking about this for a while. And what they said was that they believed that the guidance they had given to providers was sufficient to protect patient privacy. That has clearly not been the case, because we have continued to hear from people seeking abortions and from the health care providers giving them that they do not feel safe, right? They constantly have this fear that if I put something in someone’s medical record about an abortion, someone else might see it and it could get reported. So this should make that very clear beyond the guidance that was given out last summer — should make very clear that if you get an abortion, your doctor does not have to and should not tell any law enforcement about what happened. I think this has the potential to be really significant because one thing that we hear constantly from the people who are traveling out of state is they are terrified that they are breaking the law and that someone is going to find them, even though —

Rovner: That they’re breaking the law of their home state.

Luthra: Mm-hmm. Even though, of course, the home state laws do not criminalize the people who are seeking abortion.

Rovner: Yes. Well, I want to turn to the politics before we leave all of this. Democrats at all level of government were quick to decry this decision as wrong, anti-democratic, small d, and various other things. Republicans were a lot slower to react. How big a problem is abortion becoming for the Republican Party? They seem to be getting even more split on, “Gee, we thought that maybe overturning Roe was what we wanted and we were going to leave it at that.” And apparently anti-abortion activists are not leaving it at that.

Luthra: I mean, I think a great example of how Republicans are trying to navigate this problem is Congresswoman Nancy Mace, who, we may all recall, the day that Roe was overturned, put out a statement, like so many Republicans, saying that this was a great decision, very good for the country, the right step forward — and has since then tried very deliberately to walk away from that and to recalibrate her image on abortion and was one of the ones to come out this week and denounce the opinion from the District Court in Texas. Republicans who are willing to praise the decision in particular to take medication abortion off the market or to further restrict it, which is so unpopular, are finding themselves in a really tough spot. This is a winning issue for them and all they can really hope, and what we saw in the midterms, is to not talk about and to try and change the subject to something else.

Knight: I think important to note also that there were a good number of Republicans in Congress — think it was 69 — that signed on to an amicus brief both supporting the original lawsuit, this Texas lawsuit, and then also this decision when it came out.

Rovner: Right. This is an amicus brief to the Court of Appeals urging them to uphold the original decision.

Knight: Yeah. There were two amicus briefs , and a good number of congressional Republicans. — yeah, first for the original court case and then for the Appeals. But it was very noticeable that most of the Republican offices did not issue any kind of statement when this decision came out last week. So they’re fine supporting, putting documentation forward, supporting it, but they’re not broadcasting it, if that makes sense. And so I think that was very telling. It really was only Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, who is the Senate lead of the Pro-Life Caucus, that put something out. But it was very quiet among the rest of the Republicans, yeah.

Rovner: I noticed with that amicus brief, it’s like, OK, they’re going to say on the down-low to the anti-abortion activists, “We’re with you, but we really don’t want to publicize this because it’s not terribly popular with a lot of people.”

Luthra: To build on that, one example of someone who is really trying to walk that line and seems like is maybe facing challenges is Ron DeSantis, right? The person who did this compromise ban last year, the 15-week abortion ban, and now has clearly realized that if you want to be a nationally prominent Republican with support from the very powerful anti-abortion movement, you can’t do that; you need to be more overt in your disapproval of abortion and willingness to restrict access. But at the same time —

Rovner: Well, you’re anticipating my next question, which is that there is other abortion news this week. And in Florida, the legislature seems like it’s on the cusp of approving a six-week abortion ban to supplant the 15-week abortion ban it passed last year. And the aforementioned governor DeSantis says he will sign that if it comes to him. But Shefali, you’ve written about this. This could impact a lot more than just the people of Florida, right?

Luthra: I think it’s really important to note that Florida is the third-biggest state in the country and currently the biggest state in the eastern south part of the country where abortion is legal, even if it is only available up to 15 weeks. I have been to the clinics in Florida. It is stunning how crowded they are. There are people coming from all over the South. People are working until midnight to try and see every patient they can. And without Florida, the options are North Carolina and South Carolina. South Carolina clinics, there are very few of them, and they don’t go very far, not because of current state laws, but just because of the providers in the state. North Carolina is also looking likely to have some kind of abortion ban passed this year and again has way fewer clinics than Florida. If Florida is banning abortion after six weeks, a very, very large chunk of the country is going to be almost entirely displaced. The math just doesn’t really work. And we don’t know where people will be able to get abortions other than traveling, frankly, to Virginia, to D.C., to New York, and to all the places that so far, data shows, haven’t been as affected by out-of-state travelers.

Rovner: And of course, with the Court of Appeals decision basically saying that you can’t mail the abortion pills and that you can’t do it by telemedicine, I mean — which is not to say that people aren’t going to continue to get them by mail. It’s just that it won’t be FDA-sanctioned the way it was going to be. So Idaho is also making abortion news. This this feels like an afterthought, even though last week it seemed like a big deal. They have enacted a bill there creating the crime of abortion trafficking, which is the act of any adult transporting a minor for an abortion without her parent’s consent. Now, in the late 1990s and the early aughts, Republicans in the U.S. Congress tried unsuccessfully to pass something called the Child Custody Protection Act, which would have criminalized taking a minor across state lines for an abortion. But Idaho can’t do that. Only the federal government can regulate interstate travel. So this Idaho law just applies to the in-state portion of the trip. But it could still be a big deterrent, right? Unless you live right on the border. If you’re trying to take somebody out of state, you’re going to have to do part of it in state.

Luthra: I mean, of course. And I mean, Julie, I wanted to ask you about this because this is not actually a new kind of restriction. There are a bunch of states that have passed these, quote-unquote, “child trafficking laws” that restrict minors traveling out of state for abortion. Idaho is the first one to do it post-Dobbs. But for some reason, the anti-abortion movement has always had far more success in restricting access to minors. I think we’re all paying more attention now because we realize that this could in fact be the first step toward that thing that Justice Kavanaugh said would not happen, right? The larger-scale restriction of travel out of state for abortions.

Rovner: Yes. Restricting abortion for minors has been sort of the soft spot for the anti-abortion movement, really from the very beginning, because even people who consider themselves in favor of abortion rights, as we’ve seen this year with books — you know, parents are really like, “We want to be in charge of our daughters, and if my daughter needs my permission to get her ears pierced, she should need my permission to get an abortion or, God forbid, travel out of state or get contraception.” This is actually — it’s the minor issue that’s the reason that the Title X, the Family Planning Program, has not been reauthorized by Congress since 1984, which was before I started covering it. Oh, it’s my favorite piece of reproductive health trivia, because every time Congress tried to do it they got hung up over this question of should minors be able to get contraception without their parents’ approval. It is a continuing thing, but I think Idaho probably got more attention because they call this “abortion trafficking,” so we have a new law. All right. Well, there actually is other news this week that does not have to do with abortion. Congress next week will return from its two-week Easter/Passover break. And apparently at the top of the agenda in the Senate is a bill focusing on drug prices and particularly on pharmacy benefit managers. Even the Republican-led House is looking at PBM legislation. Sarah, remind us, what are PBMs and why are they so very unpopular among both Democrats and Republicans?

Karlin-Smith: So PBMs are companies contracted by your health insurance company or now, at this point, often owned by your health insurance company, that administer your pharmacy benefits, and they create the formularies that decide what drugs are covered and how much you are going to pay for them. And then they negotiate deals with pharmaceutical companies to try and lower the prices of drugs. And they also have to work with the pharmacies. So they’re called middlemen, often in a not very nice way. The drug industry has definitely tried to paint them as the key reason prices are too high, saying they give them discounts but they’re not passing them on to patients. It’s a bit more complicated than that. PBMs essentially say they do pass on that money to patients in the U.S. system but it ends up lowering everybody’s premiums, so not necessarily the person who’s paying for the high-cost drug. Of course, it’s a lot more complicated, because this is an industry, I think, surrounded by a lack of transparency. So it’s been hard for people, I think, to verify who’s getting that money and is it all really going to patients? And then, like I mentioned, this consolidation with health insurance companies, with parts of the pharmacy system as well, has started to raise a lot of kind of antitrust concerns and, again, that they may not be working in patients’ best interests.

Rovner: And a lot of this legislation is about transparency, right? It’s about sort of opening the black box of how PBMs set drug prices and negotiate with drug companies and pass these things along to insurers. I see you nodding, Victoria.

Knight: Yeah, and there’s a lot of different bills floating out there. There’s some that have passed out of committee in previous Congress that passed out of committee again, most notably a Senate Commerce bill — Chuck Grassley and Maria Cantwell — and that just passed out of committee, and that would implement some transparency measures, also ban the practice of spread pricing. There is some talk that Schumer may put a health package on the floor sometime soon, and so PBMs are going to potentially be a big part of that. There’s also supposed to be a markup sometime this month out of the Health, Education, Labor, Pensions Committee, where they also are talking about PBMs. So it’s interesting that there is a real movement on both sides of the aisle, also in the House, on PBMs. So they want to put some blame on high drug prices on someone. And right now it seems to be PBMs.

Rovner: And it looks like they’re going to go after insulin again, too, right? In the bill that passed last year they managed to cap insulin costs at $35 a month, but only for people on Medicare. So I guess this is the attempt to come back and require lower insulin prices for others. We will point out that many of the companies have voluntarily lowered some insulin prices, but looks like Congress not done with this yet, right?

Knight: No, it’s not done with it yet. Bernie Sanders is apparently going to haul some insulin execs in to have to testify, even though some of them have committed to lowering prices. And it’s also mentioned in the potential Schumer package, that $35 cap for everyone is supposed to be a part of it. And there’s also a lot of insulin $35-cap bills floating around. There is some Republican support in the Senate for that. There were some Republicans last year that voted for that. But I think the House will be the bigger issue, because there doesn’t seem to be as much Republican support in the House for a cap that extends to everyone.

Rovner: Yeah, but I mean, when we said sort of back in January that there might be some things that they could do on a bipartisan basis, it sounds like we’re starting to see some of them — now that it’s spring — blooming. So anything else that you are looking for this next session between, you know, Easter and Memorial Day?

Knight: I think also, I don’t know how much people are paying attention to this, but there is going to be one of those select subcommittee covid hearings next week and they’re bringing in some intelligence officials to talk about covid origins. So I think this is the first hearing with actual, like, intelligence officials. So I think it’ll be interesting to see what comes out of that. And obviously, there’s a lot of talk around, like, that practical policy implications are that Congress could kind of restrict NIH [National Institutes of Health] funding or how NIH gives out research funding because of all this talk around gain-of-function research in regards to covid origins. So I think that’s what we’re watching for rather than just the rhetoric around it, like what are the actual — how could it play out in regards to NIH funding? And then of course, can’t forget debt ceiling negotiations and work requirements are still very much being talked about.

Rovner: For Medicaid.

Knight: For Medicaid and also SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] potentially. So there was reporting this morning from Punchbowl saying that work requirements are very much still in the proposals that are being kicked around. So, another thing to watch.

Rovner: May is traditionally a very busy month on Capitol Hill, particularly May of the odd-numbered year, the first year of a Congress, so I imagine we’ll see a lot. One last thing I want to talk about this week, and we haven’t talked about it for a while, but the toll of gun injuries just continues to mount. In the past three weeks, we’ve had mass shootings with multiple fatalities in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Florida. In Louisville, in fact, the mayor, who himself survived a mass shooting last year, lost a close friend in the shooting this week. So it’s not all that surprising that a new poll from my colleagues over the editorial firewall at KFF found that gun violence is so common that more than one in five Americans say they have personally been threatened by a gun. Nearly as many say a family member has been killed by a gun; 17% say they have personally witnessed someone being shot. The numbers are even worse for people of color. Nearly a third of Black adults have witnessed someone being shot, and more than a third have lost a family member to gun violence. We seem to have acknowledged finally that gun violence is a public health problem. Yet that hasn’t brought us any closer as a society to solving it. I mean, we were just talking about the things that Congress might be looking at in terms of health care in the spring. But gun violence isn’t really one of them, is it?

Knight: Yeah. I think you’ve seen from the Biden administration and acknowledgment from both sides of the aisle in Congress that the bipartisan bill that passed last year, which gave a lot of money towards mental health funding and also allowed states the option to implement red flag laws and some other smaller gun safety things. They kind of acknowledged that’s as far as they’re going to be able to go in the current makeup of this Congress. So it seems like a stalemate and it’s kind of like now on a state level. And there was some talk from Tennessee’s governor about doing some small things, perhaps after the shooting in Nashville, but it doesn’t seem like there is much movement.

Rovner: And of course, in Tennessee, it was fighting about not doing anything about guns that erupted in that whole conflagration with people getting —

Knight: — expelled —

Rovner: —evicted from the Tennessee state legislature and then reappointed and yeah, I mean, that — people may not remember, that’s actually over a gun demonstration or a lack-of-gun-legislation demonstration. So who knows whether anyone will find something to do about it. All right. That is the news for this week. Now it’s time for our extra credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at khn.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Sarah, why don’t you go first this week?

Karlin-Smith: Sure. I looked at an NBC News story called “Conspiracy Theorists Made Tiffany Dover Into an Anti-Vaccine Icon. She’s Finally Ready to Talk About It.” This was a nurse who was one of the first people to receive a covid vaccine when it first became available. And apparently, I guess, this is something that’s been a problem for her, she says, throughout her whole life. Sometimes with certain pain reactions she faints. And the story also talks about how she hadn’t really eaten lunch that day. But basically it was filmed and shared quite widely, including all over social media, and anti-vaccine activists basically took it and were using it sort of as proof of the harm caused by the vaccines. And the reaction to that from the hospital, and herself to some degree, was basically to just kind of keep quiet and not respond. There was very little pushback, yet — the idea was kind of if we ignore it, it will go away. But that just kept fueling everything. And basically people thought she might have even been dead and no one was telling. They thought the hospital was using her co-worker as sort of a body double to show proof of life. And a couple of years later, she’s finally trying to talk about what that experience was like and make clear again: She was fine, she was healthy, you know, she was more than happy to get the vaccine, you know, would do it again and stuff. But it’s a really interesting story because I think the journalists sort of go through again how we’ve been sort of grappling as a society with how to respond to this type of misinformation and how some of the normal kind of PR playbook strategies are actually hurting, not helping, public health. So we need to kind of shift to figure out how to handle that.

Rovner: And there are lots and lots and lots of these stories about people who, you know, quote-unquote, “died” when they got the vaccine, who are perfectly fine and walking around. It was — it was a really well done story. It’s just — it’s really kind of scary. Victoria.

Knight: Victoria, my extra credit this week is a story in The Washington Post by David Willman and Joby Warrick. It’s called “Research With Exotic Viruses Risks a Deadly Outbreak, Scientists Warn.” And so it’s basically kind of an in-depth look at how, over the years, the U.S. has funded virus research where — in other countries — where people go out into like forests and wildlife areas and collect bat samples, collect samples from different animals to try to kind of predict the next pandemic. And it profiles this one team in Thailand who has said, “We’re not accepting U.S. funds anymore.” They told the U.S. in 2021 after covid, “This feels too risky for us.” And we — they have been doing this research funded by the U.S. for four years, and they really felt like they hadn’t found much tangible benefit out of it either. So they’re kind of like, “It’s not worth the risk to our employees and potentially creating another pandemic on our own.”

Rovner: And and just to be clear, this isn’t gain-of-function research.

Knight: This is not even gain-of-function research.

Rovner: This is a different kind of potentially dangerous research.

Knight: Yeah, this is really just going out in the wild and collecting samples from animals that are out there already. But yeah, it’s not doing research in a lab that’s like altering a virus necessarily. So yeah, and so the story is kind of reckoning — like what is the balance between wanting to do scientific research and needing that knowledge for the future and the safety of employees and the general public. So, and it talked about how there is like — the U.S. does fund quite a bit of this kind of research around the world, and the pace of that has not always kept up with regulation and oversight. And so just kind of probing questions, especially as I talked about earlier — Congress does look into this issue of gain-of-function research and just the NIH funding research around the world in general.

Rovner: I feel like this whole week has been, where do government and science cross? Shefali.

Luthra: My story is from the well-named KFF Health News. It is called “For Uninsured People With Cancer, Securing Care Can Be Like Spinning A Roulette Wheel.” It’s by Charlotte Huff. It’s a really, really great look at what happens when you get cancer and in particular live in a state that didn’t expand Medicaid. Charlotte just does a really great job looking at the experiences that this woman has when she develops skin cancer and is recommended all these treatments that she can’t afford. She lives in South Carolina. She’s not eligible for Medicaid because they didn’t expand eligibility. And what it really gets into is the idea that there are a couple of cancers where you will get treatment, but for most of them, you will not get coverage; you have to pay thousands, sometimes tens of thousands out-of-pocket. And it’s a really well done, devastating look at what health care costs mean in our system and how much access really is for so much of health care based on where you happen to live.

Rovner: Yeah, it really is — really wonderful story. Well, my story, it’s also from The Washington Post, and it’s called “To Comply With a New Sesame Allergy Law, Some Businesses Add — Sesame,” by Karen Weese. So back in 2004, I covered the deliberation and passage of the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act, which for the first time required companies to put on the label in plain English if their products contained any of the eight major food allergens, which are milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, and soybeans. It was an enormous relief, particularly to parents of young children with allergies and to anyone with a food allergy that could be fatal. So, the law also required food companies to label whether there was a chance that the product could have been cross-contaminated with one of those allergens. That’s why you sometimes see on a label, you know, quote, “This product was produced in a facility that also makes milk products or that uses nuts” or some such thing. The law has worked pretty well, say those who fought for it, and in 2021 Congress added sesame to the list of allergens that had to be labeled. Except that this time something weird happened. Many food companies, rather than carefully cleaning and monitoring their plants to ensure there would be no cross-contamination with sesame, instead are basically evading the law’s intent by adding small amounts of sesame flour to their products and then putting on the label that “This product contains sesame.” It’s dangerous for a lot of reasons but mainly because for people with sesame allergies who have eaten certain products without problems for years, they may not realize that, to them at least, a poison has been added to their favorite bread or roll or whatever kind of product. So this is something that I imagine Congress is going to want to go back and take a look at. All right. Before we go this week, you may have noticed that the introduction to the podcast has been tweaked. That’s because we have a new name. Kaiser Health News has been retired as of this week. We are KFF Health News to reflect that we are an editorially independent program of KFF, also a new name, and that neither of us is connected in any way to that big HMO [health maintenance organization] Kaiser Permanente. I hope you will bear with us as we all get used to the change. OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoyed the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us too. Special thanks, as always, to our ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me, at least for the moment. I am still @jrovner. Victoria?

Knight: @victoriaregisk.

Rovner: Sarah?

Karlin-Smith: @SarahKarlin.

Rovner: Shefali.

Luthra: @shefalil.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, 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).