The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

As abortion and other reproductive issues gain more prominence in the looming election, some Republicans are trying to moderate their anti-abortion positions, particularly in states where access to the procedure remains politically popular. 

Meanwhile, open enrollment is underway for Medicare, even as some health plans are challenging in court the federal government’s decision to reduce their quality ratings — with millions of dollars at stake. 

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, and Victoria Knight of Axios.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs Zhang
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories.

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• With polls showing more voters citing abortion as a top voting issue, some candidates with long track records opposing abortion rights are working to moderate their positions.
• Many older Americans will spend less on prescription drugs next year due to a new out-of-pocket pricing cap, among other changes in store as provisions of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act take effect. But some are realizing the limits on those benefits, as deeper problems persist in drug pricing, insurance coverage, and access.
• The FDA is reconsidering a weight-loss drug decision that caused confusion for patients and compounding pharmacies. Compounded drugs are intended for individual issues, like needing a different dosage — and while the process can be used to augment mass manufacturing during times of drug shortages, it is not well suited to address access and pricing issues.
• In abortion news, a comprehensive study shows abortions have increased since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, even among women in states with strict restrictions — and those states are seeing higher infant mortality rates, according to separate research. And an effort is underway to revive in a Texas court the challenge to mifepristone’s FDA approval. The last challenge failed because the Supreme Court found the plaintiffs lacked standing.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Tricia Neuman, senior vice president of KFF and executive director of its Program on Medicare Policy, about Medicare open enrollment and the changes to the program for 2025. 

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

Julie Rovner: NBC News’ “Crisis Pregnancy Center’s Forms Give Rare Insight Into Anti-Abortion Practices,” by Abigail Brooks.  

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Vanity Fair’s “Inside the Bungled Bird Flu Response, Where Profits Collide With Public Health,” by Katherine Eban. 

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: The Atlantic’s “The Perverse Consequences of Tuition-Free Medical School,” by Rose Horowitch.  

Victoria Knight: NPR’s “Why Catholic Bishops Are Donating Less To Oppose Abortion Rights Measures This Year,” by Rosemary Westwood and Jack Jenkins.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “Abortions Have Increased, Even for Women in States With Rigid Bans, Study Says,” by Claire Cain Miller and Margot Sanger-Katz.
• CNN’s “Infants Died at Higher Rates After Abortion Bans in the US, Research Shows,” by Deidre McPhillips.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Less Than Two Weeks To Go

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Oct. 24, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this, so here we go. 

Today we are joined via video conference by Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat News. 

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios. 

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone. 

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with my friend and KFF colleague Tricia Neuman about Medicare open enrollment and what to expect in Medicare in the coming year. 

But first, this week’s news. We will start on the campaign trail since Election Day is now less than two weeks away. Let that sink in. Abortion is, at least according to many polls, on the upswing as a voting issue and, probably not coincidentally, abortion-adjacent issues, like contraception, are also getting more attention. But while it’s clear that Democrats are still pretty much the party of abortion rights and Republicans are pretty much the party representing anti-abortion activists, we’re seeing some Republican candidates working pretty hard to muddy the waters. Yes? 

Knight: Yeah, it’s been interesting this election cycle. We have seen some Republicans saying that they are pro-choice. And this is at a time when, finally, on the Democratic side in Congress, there really are not many anti-abortion Democrats left. We have in the House congressman Henry Cuellar [of Texas] is really the only one left. [Pennsylvania] Sen. Bob Casey, we’ve kind of seen him swing over time to be more in the camp of pro-choice, pro-abortion rights and so … 

Rovner: … which was really, in Casey’s case, really interesting, because his father, who was the governor of Pennsylvania, was sort of the original anti-abortion Democrat back in the early 1990s. 

Knight: Yeah. I’m interested to see if this works in — we’re seeing, particularly in some more moderate, swinging House seats, that Republicans are trying to message in this way that they’re more moderate on abortion, saying they’re more pro-choice. I’m interested to see if this actually works. And then we have perhaps this caucus within the House, if that works, that are more moderate. I mean, you already see in the current makeup of the House, there are some House Republicans, particularly the New York Republicans, that were really careful in this 118th Congress when they were having to vote on certain bills that would restrict, for example, access to mifepristone. That was kind of a rider in the FDA appropriations bill, and they didn’t want to vote for it, and they helped cause chaos on the House floor for that bill, particularly, because they didn’t want to pass it because they knew that would look bad on their record and they were having to run for the House again. So, will this messaging work for the kind of new people that are running this cycle? I’m not sure, but we’ll see. 

Rovner: I was kind of surprised to see Liz Cheney this week (who was out campaigning with Vice President [Kamala] Harris), who’s strongly anti-abortion, has been her entire career, actually pipe up on her own — and she’s not running for anything; she’s basically a person without a party at the moment — but say that even though she’s anti-abortion, she is not in favor of some of the things that are happening with some of these abortion bans, like women having miscarriages not being able to get immediate medical [care]. I was fascinated to see somebody who, with as strong anti-abortion credentials as she has, speak out about these things that one would assume even people who are anti-abortion would not be against. We do see the anti-abortion group saying making abortion illegal doesn’t make it illegal to treat ectopic pregnancies and miscarriage care, even though it gets all muddled when you’re actually on the ground doing it and you’re a doctor facing potential jail time. 

Knight: Well, and I think the thing is, people are seeing the realities of the abortion bans a couple of years in. I think that’s really the consequences. … When these first happened two years ago, people can say all these kind of things, but now that they’ve been in place for a couple years and women have died, we’re hearing these stories from news outlets of how that happens and it’s often women that want the babies. It’s like people are having to moderate their stances somewhat, I think. 

Rovner: It’s — there’s nuance. … Politics is not great with nuance, but we’re seeing nuance. 

Well, one abortion-adjacent story that jumped out at me this week is happening in Florida, where it seems that the office of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis himself was behind legal threats to TV stations running ads in favor of the ballot measure that would enshrine abortion rights in the state’s constitution. According to the Tampa Bay Times, “Florida Department of Health general counsel John Wilson said he was given prewritten letters from one of DeSantis’ lawyers … Oct. 3 and told to send them under his own name, he wrote in a sworn affidavit.” Wilson subsequently resigned rather than send out more letters. In between, a judge warned the state to cease and desist with the threat, saying, and I quote, “It’s the First Amendment, stupid.” I have honestly never seen anything quite like this, although I would also point out I’ve never seen anything quite like Florida’s surgeon general recommending against people getting vaccines. What the heck is going on in Florida? 

Cohrs Zhang: I think we’ve seen state officials in Florida try to enact their will and challenge public health recommendations. Certainly, we saw that happen during the covid-19 pandemic. They were trying to put out their own guidelines on vaccination, and so I don’t think it’s a particular surprise. I think it is just uglier than usual now that we get the full backstory on how these letters came to be. And court cases take a long time, and I think that’ll extend to beyond the next couple of weeks. But it’s an interesting publicity stunt for what it is, and yeah I … 

Rovner: I wouldn’t want to be one of the TV stations threatening to have its license canceled, although the head of the FCC, I think, got involved too and said, “Um, this is not how this works.” 

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, I think so. I don’t expect that the court would find that political ads you don’t like are illegal, so, yeah. 

Rovner: Yeah, I don’t think the governor can tell you to pull political ads that they don’t like. Pretty sure that’s not how these things work. 

Well, meanwhile, given the very real possibility that Donald Trump will return to the White House, the D.C. rumor mill is already spinning out names of those who could fill Cabinet and other senior health posts. What are you guys hearing? And is RFK Jr. really going to end up in some big health policymaking job? 

Knight: That’s funny that you say that because I was just having a talk with my editors about the names that we’re hearing. I have heard, and I am sure Rachel and Sarah have names on their mind as well, but someone said this to me, I think it’s funny: A very 2004 pick would be Bobby Jindal. He’s at the America First Policy Institute, which has a lot of former Trump administration people there, and it’s kind of seen this swing, I think recently, now that Project 2025 is kind of like no one wants to touch Project 2025 anymore. It seems like more people are, like, OK, AFPI is the place to pick people from if there’s a new Trump administration. And there’s been some stories this week about the chief of staff potentially coming from AFPI. So, people have been telling me Bobby Jindal, but I think he seems to have some solid grounding in that. You probably are more familiar with him, Julie, than I am, but … 

Rovner: Oh, yes. I’ve known him since 2004. I’ve known him since before 2004. He was actually … he was brought to Washington by Democratic Sen. John Breaux to staff a Medicare commission back in, I think it was the very late 1990s. He served in Congress, he was the governor of Louisiana, and he served in HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] in the George W. Bush administration. So he’s got lots of experience, and he’s coincidentally all over Twitter this week with a paid ad, trashing Kamala Harris’ support for “Medicare for All,” which, of course, she hasn’t supported since 2019. But yeah, suddenly Bobby Jindal, who we hadn’t seen in a while, is kind of everywhere. He was one of the bright young lights about, what, eight years ago? 

Knight: Right, right. 

Rovner: But I guess before Trump, he was one of the bright young Republican lights. So yeah, I keep hearing his name too. 

Cohrs Zhang: I don’t know … 

Rovner: Go ahead, Rachel. 

Cohrs Zhang: I was just going to say that I don’t think there are a lot of people that we’ve been talking to who are worried about RFK himself getting appointed to one of these posts, but I think there has been a lot of buzz about some of his allies, like Calley and Casey Means. I know my colleague Isa Cueto did a great — just, profile of kind of who they are and kind of how their rise has just been so meteoric, and I think we’re also seeing some allies. So people who rose in the conservative movement over skepticism, over vaccine mandates, and just like the whole public health establishment have really gotten a new platform. And so I think people are a little nervous, as we’ve reported, both health care industry leaders who are worried about anti-pharmaceutical industry sentiment, anti-science sentiment, and even establishment Republican leaders and officials who served in prior Trump administrations that the picks could be more extreme than a Bobby Jindal establishment-Republican type and that this could be taking a turn. 

Rovner: Sarah, what are you hearing with FDA? 

Karlin-Smith: I mean, it’s a little less clear, I think, who might end up in FDA, but the sentiment has been probably a more typical Trump pick than maybe we got last time. FDA was sort of insulated in some ways, I think, from some of the drama, if you will, of the Trump administration last time. Scott Gottlieb was able to run FDA with pretty hands-off from other parts of the administration, and I think he ran FDA more like you would expect a traditional Republican to run FDA, not necessarily a Trump Republican. And I think people are recognizing that FDA will be a lot more vulnerable this time around that we’re probably not going to get another kind of Scott Gottlieb to save FDA if Trump is president. There’s certainly more concerns about how that impacts staff turnover as well, among civil service folks. 

Rovner: Yeah, we will see. 

All right, well, moving on. Open enrollment for Medicare began last week and continues until Dec. 7. That’s when people on Medicare can join or change their private prescription drug and/or Medicare Advantage plans. We explore this in more detail in my interview later in this episode with KFF’s Tricia Neuman. We know that most people with Medicare and most people with private insurance, where they can change plans during an open enrollment season, don’t actually bother to do anything. But this year there really are a lot of changes coming in Medicare, particularly on the prescription drug side. Why is it extra important this year that people take a look at their coverage? 

Karlin-Smith: So, some of the big changes with the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] that kick in this year for Medicare and the prescription side, like the $2,000 out-of-pocket cap. Your plan actually has to cover that. One thing, I was at a conference this week and they’re saying that drug has to be, actually be on your plan for you to reap those savings of hitting that cap, which seems obvious, but … 

Rovner: Oh, I don’t know. I think people don’t quite realize that. It’s like they think that there’s a $2,000 cap no matter what, and it’s important. It’s, like, if your drug is not one of the drugs that’s covered by your plan, does not count. 

Karlin-Smith: Right, and so it’s looking for all of those things to make sure all the pieces of your plan actually fit together with your medical needs. There’s been, I think, a reduction, in some degree, into the amount of particularly Part D stand-alone plans for people who elect to use traditional Medicare for their other health benefits. So you may just want to look a little bit more closely at what the options are, what the premiums are, because some of these changes to Part D have impacted premiums a bit, though the federal government has stepped in to try to alleviate that. 

But I think this is seen as an adjustment year for the plans because one of the ideas behind the IRA is to put both health insurance companies as well as the pharmaceutical companies more on the hook, in some ways, for the cost of drugs. The old way Part D plans worked, the government ended up bearing a lot of the costs of the drugs to a point where it didn’t give a lot of incentives for both the drug companies to want to lower the prices, for the insurance companies to push for that. So I think it may take a little bit of time for them to figure out now how to adjust the benefits and the premiums and so forth, given this new dynamic. So people just may want to pay a little bit more close attention for premium aspects and others as well to the plans they’re picking. 

Rovner: And if you’re helping someone on Medicare, which I know many people are, it’s good to do a little extra homework this year. 

Well, another story that caught my eye is a survey of independent drugstores that suggests many of them won’t stock the very expensive drugs that Medicare negotiations are making less expensive, because they would actually lose money dispensing them. Sarah, is this an unexpected glitch, and can it be fixed, or is this just the price of bringing down drug prices? 

Karlin-Smith: I would say not entirely unexpected. These independent pharmacies have warned CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] and tried to push in guidance so that when they’re dispensing a drug, basically, they will be entitled to get quicker rebates from the drug companies so that they can make stocking these drugs more reasonable for them. And these pharmacies, I think in particular, have been raising alarm bells outside of Medicare drug price negotiations for a while now, that they’re being placed in these difficult positions where they have to buy drugs at whatever the wholesale acquisition cost is. And then there’s all of this insurance back-end stuff going on, and they sometimes get reimbursed by the plans and so forth for less than they’ve actually bought the drugs. 

So it’s not just a Medicare drug price negotiation issue here. Some of it is, again, about the time that the pharmaceutical companies have to rebate the costs and they ask Medicare for a bit of leeway. And others, it’s just this broader way our system works, where they’re buying wholesale. You have a patient come to the counter that pays their small portion of it, their plan pays, whatever, and everybody has to sort of, right at the end … and these pharmacies are saying, “We can’t afford to do that.” I do think, politically, if this becomes a problem, if patients can’t get the negotiated prices/drugs at the pharmacies they’re used to, this could be politically problematic for the IRA moving forward. Even though, again, I’m not entirely sure. It’s illuminating a broader problem in the system that I think existed without it. 

Rovner: Right, it’s all a big mess, and it’s underlining it. 

Karlin-Smith: Right, but that doesn’t mean that politics won’t come into play and blame drug price negotiation. And certainly, anytime an opposing party hates something — we know Democrats are really into this, Republicans aren’t, and I’m sure they will try and blame it on the IRA as much as possible. And we’ll see if CMS maybe realizes that they had a little more leverage to try and make this a little bit easier and fixes it for the next round. 

Rovner: Yeah. Before we leave Medicare, I want to talk briefly about Medicare Advantage. This Medicare Advantage market is so valuable to insurers and so competitive that we now have at least two lawsuits charging that Medicare wrongly lowered the number of quality stars some plans received. Now, this feels like a restaurant suing Yelp for lowering its rating from four stars to three, but in Medicare Advantage, this is a really big deal, right, when they lose a star? 

Cohrs Zhang: Right, I think if the Yelp rating was worth $70 million, or whatever that figure is, then yeah, maybe they would sue. So I think we certainly — I think it’s a measure that is so important to insurers, to regulators, but that individual people might not understand. And there were some really interesting details from that lawsuit about the potential that there was one call-center call that tipped the balance into a quality measure and that there might’ve been some technical difficulties, and it does just cast these larger questions that I think I’ll be interested to see what documents come out during these lawsuits. And just questioning how useful these metrics really are, if that really was the case. 

Rovner: Yeah, I found it, I also was taken aback. It’s like, really, one call to a customer service center didn’t happen properly, and so the whole plan loses a star? That seemed a little bit dramatic, but yes, like you, I’ll be interested to see. There’s a lot of pressure on Medicare Advantage from every conceivable angle, but we are now in litigation over it. 

Well, while we are on the subject of private health companies suing the federal government, the compounding pharmacies who have been legally selling unapproved copies of the very popular and very expensive diabetes/obesity drugs Mounjaro and Zepbound have apparently successfully gotten the FDA to reverse its earlier finding, based on the pharmaceutical manufacturers’ say-so, that those drugs are no longer in shortage. That’s a decision that would’ve made it illegal for the compounders to continue to make and sell those drugs. At the same time, Novo Nordisk, maker of the very popular and very expensive diabetes/obesity drugs Ozempic and Wegovy, are trying to get the FDA to stop compounders from copying their drugs, which are still in shortage. Can somebody please explain what’s going on here? 

Karlin-Smith: So, basically, compounding is where pharmacists can sometimes make drugs in a more customized fashion because a person maybe can’t swallow a pill or needs a slightly different dose or a different inactive ingredient, but there’s not … 

Rovner: And they add flavoring for kids too, right? 

Karlin-Smith: Right. 

Rovner: Isn’t that a big compounding thing? 

Karlin-Smith: But it’s not supposed to be something that takes the place of mass-manufactured drugs. But one of the times when it kind of can — and FDA, after some big safety incidents in 2013, developed a sort of scheme where there can be some degree mass compounding, but there’s a little bit more safety oversight from their end. 

And one of the cases where you can do more compounding is when a drug is in shortage. But once FDA flipped the switch and said, “Oh, OK, actually, these drugs are no longer in shortage,” that makes it illegal. So these companies sued. My understanding from talking to legal experts is it’s not necessarily clear that FDA is entirely reversing course and agreeing that drugs aren’t in shortage. They’re agreeing to re-look at their decision, which may mean they are going to bolster their case so when they get back into court, they have a much clearer documentation of why the drugs are actually out of shortage. But in the meantime, we have probably at least another four weeks or so where everybody can compound these products. 

At the same time, I think Novo Nordisk and, actually, Eli Lilly before them had also submitted a similar citizen petition to FDA trying to basically get these drugs from being on lists where you really could not compound them at all. And there’s clearly a lot of money at stake here. These are probably some of the most well-known drugs right now with huge markets in the U.S., but they’re also really expensive and they haven’t been picked up and covered by a lot of insurance plans, particularly when you’re talking about the weight loss element. I think for Type 2 diabetes, there’s pretty good coverage. And the thing here that’s really so significant is this is probably one of the first times in the U.S. where we’ve seen this mass-market compounding for a drug kind of at the beginning-ish of its exclusivity, at least when you’re talking about weight loss — again, not diabetes. And it’s not like a niche thing. So many people are using it,  through compounding. And again, it’s really like … 

Rovner: The advertising is everywhere on social media. 

Karlin-Smith: Right, I mean, that just surprised me, I think, at first to begin with, how open these companies were about it being available via compounding pharmacies. And so I think FDA is in a really tricky position, particularly if they can clearly document it’s not a shortage situation anymore, because there still probably is going to be a lot of demand because of the cheaper prices coming from compounders, because of health insurance coverage issues. But, again, the compounding system is not meant to address those sorts of price and access issues. Right? It’s supposed to be for very particular situations where people really can’t use the exact manufactured drug, in most cases. And so maybe this tension will force us to address the other issues of price and insurance coverage, but it’s an awkward position for FDA to be in. 

And again, because, I think, it’s just also important just to go backtrack and remember, you know, FDA facilitates an important role of inspecting the manufacturing facilities, ensuring every lot is being manufactured to a consistent quality, approving the drug to begin with. So there’s certainly this delicate dance of you want people to be able to get drugs they need and you also don’t want this kerfuffle to undermine the entire drug-approval system we have that ensures that when you get a drug, a prescription drug, you know it’s a certain quality. 

Rovner: And it is what it says it is. 

Karlin-Smith: Right. 

Rovner: Yes. All right, well, turning back to abortion. A new study out this week suggests that not only has the number of abortions not gone down since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it actually might’ve gone up. Now there are lots of caveats with these numbers and, clearly, one big reason is the loosening of restrictions on obtaining abortion medication by mail. We also have a separate study this week that found infant mortality in states with abortion bans are rising, perhaps due to less available medical care in some of those states, as well as more fetuses with deadly anomalies being carried to term. But I have to wonder what these numbers will prompt from the anti-abortion side. Are they going to double down on efforts to impose some sort of nationwide restrictions or bans if Republicans regain control of the White House and Congress? And how are they going to address the rising infant mortality numbers? Victoria, are you hearing anything from the anti-abortion side? I’ve heard kind of not a lot. I’ve been surprised at how much I have not heard. 

Knight: Yeah, I mean I think this has been an interesting election for them because I think Trump has said different things throughout this election cycle on his stance on abortion and being — taking credit for appointing the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe, but then at the same time being, like, it’s a states issue. And I’ve seen some reporting on that a lot of these groups are frustrated with Trump, but they kind of are sticking with him for the moment because they’re, like, this is the guy we have. 

So I think that perhaps they will put more pressure, depending on what the makeup of Congress is, and I think it’s important to remember it really depends on the majorities, this upcoming Congress, what will that look like? So if there is a Republican sweep, how many senators will be there? How many Republican senators? Also in the House, it may not be a huge majority either. And as we talked about earlier in this episode, there are some Republicans that are trying to walk the line more and be more moderate on abortion. And will they want to vote for a national abortion ban? That seems doubtful to me. And, for now, the filibuster is still in place in the Senate, so you still need 60 votes to pass anything. So, I think that they’re being quiet for now, but I think, depending on what Congress looks like, they could up their ante later. 

Cohrs Zhang: Again, I think Congress just has no appetite really to talk about these things, and I don’t expect that to change, especially, like you said, with narrow majorities. And I just think that the cost-benefit, maybe we’re going to see new leadership in the Senate Republican party too, and I think a lot of that could shape how much appetite they have to pick a fight on this. So yeah, just a lot of unknowns at this point. 

Rovner: And, as we’ve discussed before, if Trump is elected, he can do a lot from the executive branch that wouldn’t require Congress, and I completely agree with Rachel: I think Congress does not have a whole lot of appetite for this. 

Knight: Right. 

Rovner: Possibly on either side. 

Knight: And I think one more thing also interesting to point out is that the current House speaker, Mike Johnson, is very anti-abortion. Throughout his congressional career and even his career as a state lawmaker, he’s always been very anti-abortion, but he’s been in power now over a year, at least a year, and he has done, really, nothing on this. And he has a slim majority, but also I think you see that, yeah, as Rachel said, there’s just not an appetite for it, so … 

Rovner: He doesn’t have the votes. 

Knight: Yeah, exactly. He doesn’t have the votes, but he’s staunchly anti-abortion, has done really nothing, so. 

Rovner: Well, Sarah, you have a story on the revived lawsuit challenging the FDA over its rules for the abortion pill mifepristone. This is my chance to say I told you so, when the Supreme Court ruled that the original plaintiffs in this case did not have standing to sue. We said at the time: not over. Not over, right? 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, three states are trying to revive that case in the court in Texas, where it originated. And it’s not particularly a surprise, like you said, the Supreme Court didn’t totally throw out the case. They said, “You guys don’t have standing,” that the doctors’ group that filed suit there. One of the interesting things now, given the timing, is as this case moves forward and if Trump wins the election, it’s not really clear to me whether his FDA and his Justice Department and so forth would actually want to defend this case or whether they would just, again, use the powers they have and push FDA to go back to the older restrictions around mifepristone’s availability. And basically make it … 

Rovner: We’re no longer talking about pulling it from the market right now? We’re just talking about the changes that were made in 2016 that makes it more easily available? 

Karlin-Smith: Right, so they sort of … 

Rovner: Is that a fair way to put it? 

Karlin-Smith: That’s like one change, which by the time we got to the Supreme Court, we were largely arguing about this as well, but they had initially started to just — by trying to get it off the market entirely. But now we’re basically arguing about changes that have made it easier to take later in pregnancy, so up to 10 weeks, and just made it easier to access. So you can now get it via telehealth and via mail and so forth, which has been really important given some of the state-specific bans on abortion. And it’s why abortion pills have become a really much more popular method for abortion. So a lot of legal experts don’t actually think these three states have standing either, or have jurisdiction, certainly in this court. However, I think they also acknowledge there’s a good chance this case proceeds and proceeds very similarly to how it did before, if for no other reason than the judges involved in the past have been willing to let these states be heard in their courtroom. 

Rovner: Yeah, it is in the 5th Circuit land of mostly Republican anti-abortion judges. 

Karlin-Smith: Right. So there’s a good chance, again, barring this sort of scenario where Trump administration comes in and just says, “We’re not going to defend this. We’re going to revert to the old restrictions anyway.” But under a Democratic administration, they could end up back all the way at the Supreme Court having to defend mifepristone’s newer availability as well. 

And the other thing that there’s been a number of mifepristone cases around the country, but there’s one that’s very similar in the 9th Circuit, where judges have basically ruled that the entire, what’s known as a REMS [risk evaluation and mitigation strategy], these restrictions related to mifepristone should actually be removed altogether. And they, actually, in some ways, want to make it more easily accessible. So whenever you have a circuits … but you also know that the Supreme Court is likely to take things up against. So yeah, I think the big thing is if people thought that last June’s Supreme Court ruling was kind of like Eh, it’s over, mifepristone is here to stay, that was just sort of the first round of many fights in access and availability of that in the courts. 

Rovner: Could a Trump administration just say, “The FDA should never have approved this drug,” and pull it from the market? Or does somebody have to file a petition for that to happen? 

Karlin-Smith: Ooh, that’s a good, tough question. I mean, there are very formal processes that go around withdrawing a drug. I think it would be challenging because at least the generic companies that manufacture the drug still want to be manufacturing it at this point. And I would imagine there would be quite a process FDA would have to go through, particularly to try and declare it no longer safe and effective to be marketed. And you, again, to raise strange history, I think if you looked at all the documents in science, because you have FDA scientists who over the years have declared it’s safe and effective and said, “Actually, as we’ve got more use with this, we realize you can actually give it to more women at different parts of pregnancy, and it’s safer than we thought. We don’t need to monitor a woman at a doctor’s office while she takes it.” So I think it would be challenging. I certainly wouldn’t put it past them trying this. 

But it does get to, I think, what’s been worrying about this mifepristone case to begin with for just people outside of the abortion space, but who follow FDA and the drug industry, which is this lack of certainty you start to lose when politicians come in and start trying to undermine the scientific drug-approval process and using politics instead, and their whims, to shift what is available or not available, because, obviously, it undermines FDA’s authority. 

And for the drug industry, I mean, a big thing they dislike is certainty, right? You’re investing millions, maybe even billions, of dollars to bring a drug to market. You want some confidence that if it’s successful and FDA says yes, it’s going to stay there unless some new, real, true safety event happens, which it does occasionally happen, but for the most part, you don’t want a new president to come into office or a new member of the Congress to flip and all of a sudden you have a drug that they’ve decided to challenge. So it’s an abortion case that’s always had these broader undertones of just confidence and trust and certainty around our scientific agencies in the U.S. 

Rovner: Yet another space we will continue to watch. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we’ll play my interview with KFF’s Tricia Neuman, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Tricia Newman, who’s KFF’s senior vice president and executive director of KFF’s Program on Medicare Policy, and senior adviser to the president, and the person I always turn to first when I have a question about Medicare and have done so for more than three decades. Tricia, welcome back to “What the Health?” 

Tricia Neuman: Hi, Julie. Thanks for having me back. 

Rovner: So, as anybody who watches over-the-air or cable TV knows, it’s Medicare open enrollment right now until Dec. 7. What should people in Medicare or people helping people in Medicare know about changes coming for 2025? 

Neuman: This is the time for people to really compare coverage options. What we’ve seen in our own research is that most people don’t compare options during the open enrollment period, but plans change, people’s needs change, and this is a great moment. People have between now until Dec. 7, as you said. The important thing to do is figure out what is actually most important to either yourself or the person you’re helping. 

Some people really need certain drugs covered by their plan, and so that might be the go-to question. Other people care very much about being able to see certain doctors or hospitals. So, for them, it’s a question of do they want to be in traditional Medicare, where they can see virtually any doctor and go to any hospital? Or if they want to be in a Medicare Advantage plan for a variety of reasons, the question is, are the doctors that they care most about covered by their plan? 

Rovner: There are big changes coming next year both for prescription drugs and for Medicare Advantage, right? 

Neuman: Absolutely. I mean, Medicare Advantage plans also cover prescription drugs, and what the big thing people need to know there is there’s a new out-of-pocket limit that’s coming. There’s not really much you have to do in order to get; it’s a Medicare benefit. So that’s really a huge change and it really is a change that helps people who take very expensive medications. I mean, I can tell you how helpful it would be to some family members of mine. I have a family member who is taking a drug, she had a Part D plan, and it was costing her $13,000 a year for this particular drug for her cancer treatment. With the new $2,000 out-of-pocket cap, her costs would drop from $13,000 to $2,000. Keep in mind that half of all people on Medicare live on an income of $36,000 or less, so this is a big deal. And not everybody is going to need this benefit in any given year, but over time, you never know. And so it’s a big change that will be helpful to people who take expensive medications. 

Rovner: Over the spring and summer, it looked like, because of this $2,000 cap, Part D plans were going to raise their premiums dramatically. That mostly didn’t happen. Why not? 

Neuman: The administration, the government put in place what they call a demonstration or a model, and essentially what it did is it limited premium increases. So no Part D plan will have a premium increase greater than $35 between 2024 and 2025. 

Rovner: … of $35 a month. 

Neuman: … of $35-a-month increase. Now that said, some will increase by $35, some will decrease. There are going to be changes, and that’s an important thing for people to keep an eye on as they consider their drug coverage for next year. 

Rovner: There are Republicans in Congress who say that what the administration did was sort of unfairly politically tinkering with Medicare, but this isn’t the first time this kind of thing has been put into place, right? 

Neuman: That’s absolutely true. I mean, I would agree that there was some concern that people in Medicare would see big increases in their drug premiums, and that was part of the concern that motivated the administration. But that was also a concern that motivated prior administrations. In fact, right after the drug benefit went into effect, and that was under the Bush administration, there were similar demonstrations that took effect. And at the time, nobody really complained because the main issue was protecting people from higher premiums. 

Rovner: But now everything is more political. 

Well, regular listeners to the podcast know that Medicare Advantage has become not just more popular among beneficiaries, but also much more controversial. Some companies are even using artificial intelligence to deny benefits and micromanaging doctors and other health care providers. Has the cost-benefit analysis for Medicare Advantage shifted over the past few years? 

Neuman: I think the focus on Medicare Advantage has changed. The way people are thinking about it is changing. Medicare Advantage is quite popular among people because plans, for a variety of reasons related to their payments, are able to offer extra benefits, and they are appealing. I mean, dental, vision, hearing. Now, the latest thing is “flex cards,” which is just kind of offering money for people to sign up for a plan. So it’s really appealing, particularly for people with fixed incomes. But the medical community has sort of surfaced and started raising concerns about what these prior authorizations and other cost-management tools mean for them and for their patients. 

So hospitals, for example, have expressed concerns about delayed payments. Doctors are now talking about prior authorization hassles. We recently did a study that documented 46 million prior-authorization requests, close to 2 million requests per enrollee. That’s a hassle for doctors. It also can delay or lead to no care for beneficiaries when it’s been prescribed by their doctor. It could, of course, limit inappropriate care, not necessary care, but I think the medical community now sees that Medicare Advantage is a big part of their patient profile and has some concerns. 

We’ve also been reading stories about some medical groups that are saying that we’re not going to take any more Medicare Advantage patients. So I think there’s a little bit more of an eye toward, gee, this has gotten really big. We know it’s really popular, but it might require a closer look. 

Rovner: Speaking of which, I mean, Medicare hasn’t really been a big campaign issue in 2024 when maybe it should have been. It doesn’t seem that safe to leave a program of its size and importance on autopilot, which is kind of what former President Trump is promising. What do we know about what Vice President Harris would do for Medicare if she were elected and what former President Trump would do if he was elected? 

Neuman: We actually know very little about what former President Trump would do. 

Rovner: He says he wouldn’t touch it. 

Neuman: He said he wouldn’t touch it. He said he’s concerned about drug costs, but we’re not really sure what more he would do there. He was for a proposal called Most Favored Nation, but he’s now withdrawn support for that. So it’s hard to know whether he would implement anything new or scale back what has already become the law of the land. For example, it’s not clear what he would do about government negotiations and whether or not there would be sufficient pressure in his caucus to scale back that pretty popular proposal that was included in the Inflation Reduction Act. 

Vice President Harris has talked about strengthening Medicare and improving the solvency, mostly through revenues on higher-income people. So that is one major proposal she has with regard to solvency. She has recently put out a proposal that would add a home care benefit to Medicare. This responds to a huge issue that you and I have talked about, that a lot of families across the country have talked about where people are really struggling to care for a family member. Family members are dropping out of the workforce in order to care for somebody because they cannot afford to get help at home. Medicare really does not currently provide a home care benefit except under limited circumstances. So this is recognizing a huge issue for families that are, it’s an economic issue if people, mostly women, have to step out of the workforce. It’s also an issue if you just cannot afford or you’re paying huge amounts for people to come into your home to help a parent, grandparent, spouse who’s unable to care for themselves. So that’s a big initiative on her part that would be funded primarily out of expanding Medicare’s ability to negotiate drugs. 

Rovner: So neither candidate is talking about solvency issues with Medicare, though, and that’s a long-term issue that somebody’s going to need to address, right? 

Neuman: Yes, that is absolutely true. It is an issue that is not going away. We have more and more people aging onto Medicare and the people who are on Medicare are getting older. And as people grow older, they tend to be more expensive. So this is not an imminent concern, but it is an issue that policymakers will have to deal with one way or the other in the years to come. 

Rovner: Well, we will keep talking about it. Tricia Neuman, thank you so much. 

Neuman: And thank you for having me, Julie. 

Rovner: OK, we are back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it; we will put the links 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 is a story on NPR, it’s called “Why Catholic Bishops Are Donating Less To Oppose Abortion Rights Measures This Year.” It was on Weekend Edition, and it is by Rosemary Westwood and Jack Jenkins, basically detailing that in the past, the Catholic Church and bishops have been really big in the anti-abortion movement and that has also translated to donating a lot of money to anti-abortion campaigns. But this year, they’re kind of seeing almost a historic low in how little they’re donating to anti-abortion campaigns. And they didn’t really have a clear answer of what the reason for that was, except that maybe they’re just acknowledging the reality of the situation. When you look at particularly the ballot measures in states and how popular those have been — we’ve seen since 2022 that the ballot measures, even in more conservative-leaning states, that protect abortion access, and those vary depending on the state, what they look like, they’ve been really, really popular. And they really have been really overwhelmingly approved, even if there’s Republicans running on the same ballot with them and that people are voting for. People still really support abortion rights mostly. 

So that seems to be the reason — they didn’t really have a clear reason, but it was an interesting marker in the trend of just kind of following where abortion rights are going, as well as where the Catholic Church is moving as well. It seems to be becoming somewhat more progressive over time. 

Rovner: I was fascinated by this story, which I just heard on the radio as I was driving, because the Catholic Church is the originator of the right-to-life movement in the United States. And for a long time, it was almost exclusively the Catholic Church that was pushing this, and now it seems to have moved sort of into other places. So this is sort of the exclamation point on that, that it’s broadened and changed, but it’s no longer being driven as much by the Catholic Church as it used to be. Rachel, why don’t you go next? 

Cohrs Zhang: Sure. So my piece is in The Atlantic, and the headline is “The Perverse Consequences of Tuition-Free Medical School,” by Rose Horowitch. And I just love this story because it’s a look back on this policy that seemed like a good idea at the time, where these really wealthy benefactors are donating to elite, often elite medical schools to make tuition free. And the whole idea was that more doctors will go into primary care if they don’t have debt, and it might open medical school to a more diverse cohort of students. And the opposite has almost happened, where they’re not seeing any more doctors going into primary care and their student body has actually gotten more wealthy than it was before. So I mean, it’s just a great check-in, because I feel like so often we’re just looking forward with the news that we don’t take a moment to question whether some of these policies or stories that we’ve covered, how they’ve worked out a couple of years later. So, I thought it was a great look back. 

Rovner: Yes, in health care, so many things go in, we try things with so much promise, and sometimes they don’t work. So it’s good to notice when they don’t work. Sarah? 

Karlin-Smith: I took a look at a Vanity Fair piece by Katherine Eban: “Inside the Bungled Bird Flu Response, Where Profits Collide With Public Health.” And it’s a fascinating deep dive to the challenges the U.S. has faced in containing what is, right now at least, mostly just an epidemic in animals, but certainly has public health folks worried about the potential for a human spillover pandemic, if not properly contained. And it’s just a really great story that shows you all of the tensions, and how it has a lot of these flashbacks to early days of covid, where you had different parts of the government with different responsibilities, not quite working together well, and not quite knowing how to play together well. Because you have the USDA in this case, which in many ways has the economics of farmers and the dairy industry in mind more than perhaps broader health concerns. You have FDA, which regulates milk; CDC, which comes in and does the human health; and then you have states, which don’t necessarily always have to answer to everything the federal government would like them to be doing here. 

And the biggest, I think, crisis we face now is just we don’t have a lot of data. We don’t have enough information to truly know the scope of this outbreak. And without knowing that, I think you risk something bad happening before we are on top of it. And that’s really what people are really concerned about now, particularly with seasonal flu season coming up, is if you mix this virus and a human being with seasonal flu or even in an animal, you could develop an even more dangerous virus. So, it’s a warning to everybody in the public health space that this is something we need to be paying attention to because, obviously, the best thing to do is contain it and tamp it out and not have to deal with a much larger human pandemic. 

Rovner: Yes, that would be nice. Something else to keep us awake at night. 

My story this week is from NBC News, it’s called “Crisis Pregnancy Center’s Forms Give Rare Insight Into Anti-Abortion Practices,” by Abigail Brooks. She got a hold of the intake forms of a pregnancy center in Idaho, which included not just the typical medical questions, but also questions about religious and financial status. And one asking, “What decision would the father like you to make, regarding the outcome of your pregnancy?” The answers, which are not protected by HIPAA, because crisis pregnancy centers are not technically medical providers, allow the staff to score whether a patient is “abortion-vulnerable,” which would lead them to try to talk her out of ending the pregnancy. 

It also includes a story of one patient who was strung along so long waiting for test results from this crisis pregnancy center that she ended up needing a second-trimester abortion. It’s quite the look at what goes on behind the scenes at some of these centers, and I strongly recommend it. 

OK, that’s all the time we have today. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, I’m @jrovner. Sarah, where are you hanging these days? 

Karlin-Smith: A little bit on X, a little bit on Bluesky, at @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith. 

Rovner: Rachel? 

Cohrs Zhang: I’m on X @rachelcohrs and also spending some time on LinkedIn, so feel free to follow me there. 

Rovner: Great. Victoria? 

Knight: I am @victoriaregisk still on X. I am trying to post more on LinkedIn, too. 

Rovner: OK, well, we will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

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

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

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

Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…

Want to stay on top of the science and politics driving biotech today? Sign up to get our biotech newsletter in your inbox.

Good morning. It’s been a challenging time for workers in the biopharma industry. We’ve seen companies announce layoffs one after another, and people online talk about how it seems increasingly difficult to secure a new job. Read our latest on this subject below, with new numbers on the state of the job market.

Read the rest…

Want to stay on top of the science and politics driving biotech today? Sign up to get our biotech newsletter in your inbox.

Hello! Hope your weekend was a blissful one. Today, we talk about AbbVie’s outsize marketing spend, see how GLP-1s are impacting cancer rates, and more.

Read the rest…

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

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

click to open the transcript

SCOTUS Ruling Strips Power From Federal Health Agencies

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

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

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

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

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios News.

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone.

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Oh, yeah.

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

Rovner: At least hundreds of thousands.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ollstein: Correct.

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

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

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

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

Rovner: But that’s where we are.

Kenen: Yes.

Rovner: They have to basically start from scratch?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Maybe they don’t have standing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: When everybody has suffered more, basically.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Title X is a federal [indecipherable].

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: We’re getting to that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: They interviewed like 300 people, right?

Knight: Yes, it said 300.

Rovner: A large bunch.

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

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

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

Rovner: Yes, indeed. Joanne?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ollstein: I’m @AliceOllstein on X.

Rovner: Victoria?

Knight: I’m @victoriaregisk.

Rovner: Joanne?

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

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Want to stay on top of the science and politics driving biotech today? Sign up to get our biotech newsletter in your inbox.

Good morning. Read on today for some exclusive hiring news and a retraction of a high-profile paper on cancer detection.

Read the rest…

Want to stay on top of the science and politics driving biotech today? Sign up to get our biotech newsletter in your inbox.

Good morning. It’s Wednesday, which means it’a also “The Bear” season 3 premiere day. For my Boston readers, know that Ayo Edebiri has been thinking deeply about the tragedy of the Great Molasses Flood of 1919.

Read the rest…

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg

@annaedney

Read Anna's stories.

Emmarie Huetteman
KFF Health News

@emmarieDC

Read Emmarie's stories.

Rachana Pradhan
KFF Health News

@rachanadpradhan

Read Rachana's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

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

click to open the transcript

Transcript: SCOTUS Rejects Abortion Pill Challenge — For Now

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

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

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

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

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

Anna Edney: Hi there.

Rovner: Rachana Pradhan of KFF Health News.

Rachana Pradhan: Hello.

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

Emmarie Huetteman: Good morning.

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

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

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

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

Edney: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edney: Exactly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Altman: Thank you, Julie, very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edney: @annaedney.

Rovner: Rachana?

Pradhan: I’m @rachanadpradhan on X.

Rovner: Emmarie?

Huetteman: I’m lurking on X @EmmarieDC.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

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 not surprising that the nursing home industry is filing lawsuits to block new Biden administration rules requiring minimum staffing at facilities that accept federal dollars. What is slightly surprising is the pushback against the rules from members of Congress. Lawmakers don’t appear to have the votes to disapprove the rule, but they might be able to force a floor vote, which could be embarrassing for the administration.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats aim to force Republicans who proclaim support for contraceptive access to vote for a bill guaranteeing it, which all but a handful have refused to do.

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

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs Zhang
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• In suing to block the Biden administration’s staffing rules, the nursing home industry is arguing that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services lacks the authority to implement the requirements and that the rules, if enforced, could force many facilities to downsize or close.
• Anthony Fauci, the retired director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the man who advised both Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden on the covid-19 pandemic, testified this week before the congressional committee charged with reviewing the government’s pandemic response. Fauci, the subject of many conspiracy theories, pushed back hard, particularly on the charge that he covered up evidence that the pandemic began because dangerous microbes escaped from a lab in China partly funded by the National Institutes of Health.
• A giant inflatable intrauterine device was positioned near Union Station in Washington, D.C., marking what seemed to be “Contraceptive Week” on Capitol Hill. Republican senators blocked an effort by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to force a vote on consideration of legislation to codify the federal right to contraception. Immediately after, Schumer announced a vote for next week on codifying access to in vitro fertilization services.
• Hospitals in London appear to be the latest, high-profile cyberattack victims, raising the question of whether it might be time for some sort of international cybercrime-fighting agency. In the United States, health systems and government officials are still in the very early stages of tackling the problem, and it is not clear whether Congress or the administration will take the lead.
• An FDA advisory panel this week recommended against the formal approval of MDMA, a psychedelic also known as ecstasy, to treat post-traumatic stress disorder. Members of the panel said there was not enough evidence to recommend its use. But the discussion did provide more guidance about what companies need to present in terms of trials and evidence to make their argument for approval more feasible.

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 free cruise that turned out to be anything but. If you have an outrageous or baffling bill you’d like to send us, you can do that here.

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

• Julie Rovner: Abortion, Every Day’s “EXCLUSIVE: Health Data Breach at America’s Largest Crisis Pregnancy Org,” by Jessica Valenti.
• Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Washington Post’s “Conservative Attacks on Birth Control Could Threaten Access,” by Lauren Weber.
• Rachel Cohrs Zhang: ProPublica’s “This Mississippi Hospital Transfers Some Patients to Jail to Await Mental Health Treatment,” by Isabelle Taft, Mississippi Today.
• Sandhya Raman: Air Mail’s “Roanoke’s Requiem,” by Clara Molot.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Nursing Home Staffing Rules Prompt Pushback

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

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, June 6, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning.

Rovner: And Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with KFF Health News’ Bram Sable-Smith, who reported and wrote this month’s KFF Health News/NPR “Bill of the Month.” It’s about a free cruise that turned out to be anything but. But first, this week’s news. We’re going to start this week with those controversial nursing home staffing rules.

In case you’ve forgotten, back in May, the Biden administration finalized rules that would require nursing homes that receive federal funding, which is basically all of them, to have nurses on duty 24/7/365, as well as impose other minimum staffing requirements.

The nursing home industry, which has been fighting this effort literally for decades, is doing what most big powerful health industry players do when an administration does something it doesn’t like: filing lawsuits. So what is their problem with the requirement to have sufficient staff to care for patients who, by definition, can’t care for themselves or they wouldn’t be in nursing homes?

Cohrs Zhang: Well, I think the groups are arguing that CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service] doesn’t have authority to implement these rules, and that if Congress had wanted these minimum staffing requirements, Congress should have done that and they didn’t. So they’re arguing that they’re overstepping their boundaries, and we are seeing this lawsuit again in Texas, which is a popular venue for the health care industry to try to challenge rules or legislation that they don’t like.

So, I think it isn’t a surprise that we would see these groups sue, given the financial issues at stake, given the fearmongering about facilities having to close, and just the hiring that could have to happen for a lot of these facilities. So it’s not necessarily a surprise, but it will certainly be interesting and impactful for facilities and for seniors across the nation as this plays out.

Rovner: I mean, basically one of their arguments is that there just aren’t enough people to hire, that they can’t get the number of people that they would need, and that seems to be actually pretty persuasive argument at some point, right?

Cohrs Zhang: I mean, there is controversy about why staffing shortages happen. Certainly there could be issues with the pipeline or with nursing schools, education. But I think there are also arguments that unions or workers’ rights groups would make that maybe if facilities paid better, then they would get more people to work for them. Or that people might exit the industry because of working conditions, because of understaffing, and just that makes it harder on the workers who are actually there if their workloads are too much. Or they’re expected to do more work — longer hours or overtime — or their vacation is limited, that kind of thing.

So I think it is a surprisingly controversial issue that doesn’t have an easy answer, but that’s the perspectives that we’re seeing here.

Rovner: I mean, layering onto this, it’s not just the industry versus the administration. Now Congress is getting into the act, which you rarely see. They’re talking about using the Congressional Review Act, which is something that Congress can do. But of course, when you’re in the middle of an administration that’s done it, it would get vetoed by the president. So they can’t probably do anything. Sandhya, I see you nodding your head. These members of Congress just want to make a statement here?

Raman: Yeah. So Sen. James Lankford insured the resolution earlier this week to block the rule’s implementation, and it’s mostly Republicans that have signed on, but we also have [Sen.] Joe Manchin and [Sen.] Jon Tester. But the way it stands, it doesn’t have enough folks on board yet, and it would also need to be taken up. It faces an uphill climb like many of these things.

Rovner: Somebody actually asked me yesterday though, can they do this? And the answer is yes, there is the Congressional Review Act. Yes, Congress with just a majority vote and no filibuster in the Senate can overturn an administration rule. But like I said, it usually happens when an administration changes its hands because it does have to be signed by the president and the president can veto it.

If the president vetoes it, then they would need a veto override majority, which they clearly don’t seem to have in this case. But obviously there is enough concern about this issue. I think there’s been a Congressional Review Act resolution introduced in the House too, right?

Ollstein: It’s really tough because, like Rachel said, these jobs are low-paid. They’re emotionally and physically grueling. It’s really hard to find people willing to do this work. And at the same time, the current situation seems really untenable for patients. There’s been so many reports of really horrible patient safety and hygiene issues and all kinds of stuff in part, not entirely the fault of understaffing, but not helped by understaffing certainly.

I think, like, we see on so many fronts in health care, there are attempts to do something about this situation that has become untenable, but any attempt also will piss off someone and be challenged.

Rovner: Yeah, absolutely. And we should point out that nursing homes are staffed primarily not by nurses, but by nurses aides of various training levels. So this is not entirely about a nursing shortage, it is about a shortage of workers who want to do this, as you say, very grueling and usually underpaid work.

Well, speaking of controversial things, Dr. Tony Fauci, the now-retired head of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and currently the man most conspiracy theorists hold responsible for the entire covid-19 pandemic, testified before the House Select Committee on the pandemic Monday. And not surprisingly, sparks flew. What, if anything, did we learn from this hearing?

Cohrs Zhang: The interesting part of this hearing was watching how Dr. Fauci positioned himself in response to a lot of these criticisms that have been circulating. The committee has been going through different witnesses, and specifically it criticized one of his deputies, essentially, who had some unflattering emails released showing that he appeared to be trying to delete emails or use personal accounts to avoid public records requests from journalists or other organizations …

Rovner: I’m shocked, shocked that officials would want to keep their information away from prying reporters’ eyes.

Cohrs Zhang: It’s not surprising, but it is surprising to see it in writing. But this is, again, everyone is working from home and channels of communication were changing. But I think we did see Dr. Fauci pretty aggressively distancing himself, downplaying the relationship he had with this individual and saying that they worked on research together, but he wasn’t necessarily advising agency policy.

So that’s at least how he was framing the relationship. So he definitely downplayed that. And I think an interesting comment he made — I’m curious to see what you think about this, Julie — was that he didn’t say that the lab leak theory itself was a conspiracy, but his involvement and a cover-up was a conspiracy. And so it did seem that some of the rhetoric has at least changed. He seemed more open-minded, I guess, to a lab leak theory than I expected.

Rovner: I thought he was pretty careful about that. I think it was the last thing he said, which is that we’re never really going to know. I mean, it could have been a lab leak. It could have happened. It could have been an animal from the wet market. The Chinese have not been very forthcoming with information. I personally keep wondering why we keep pounding at this.

I mean, it seems unlikely that it was a lab leak and then a conspiracy to cover it up. It clearly was one or the other, and there’s a lot of differences of opinions. And that was the last thing he said is that it could have been either. We don’t know. That’s always struck me as the, “OK, let’s talk about something else.” Anyway, let’s talk about something else.

Raman: I was just going to add, we did see a personal side to him, which I think we didn’t see as much when he was in his official role when he was talking. It was about the death threats that he and his family have been receiving when responding to a lot of the misinformation going around about that. And I thought that was striking compared to, just juxtaposed, with a lot of the other [indecipherable] with [Rep.] Marjorie Taylor Greene saying, “Oh, you’re not a real doctor.” There’s a lot of colorful protesters. And I just thought that stood out, too.

Rovner: Yeah, he did obviously, I think, relish the chance to defend himself from a lot of the charges that have been leveled at him. And I think … his wife is a prominent scientist in her own right — obviously can take care of herself — but I think he was particularly angry that there had been death threats leveled toward his grown daughters, which probably a bit out of line. Alice, you wanted to add something.

Ollstein: Yeah, I think it’s also been interesting to see the shift among Democrats on the committee over time. I think they’ve gone from an attitude of Republicans are on a total witch hunt, this is completely political, this is muddying the waters and fueling conspiracy theories and will lead to worse public health outcomes. And I think based on some of the revelations, like Rachel said about emails and such, they have come to a position of, oh, there might be some things that need investigating and need accountability in here.

But I think their frustration seems to be what it’s always been in that how will this lead to making the country better prepared in the future for the next pandemic — which may or may not already be circulating, but certainly is inevitable at some point. Either way, it’s all well and good to hold officials accountable for things they may have done, but how does that lead to making the country more prepared, improving pandemic response in the future? That’s what they feel is the missing piece here.

Rovner: Yeah. I think there was not a lot of that at this hearing, although I feel like they had to go through this maybe to get over to the other side and start thinking about what we can do in the future to avoid similar kinds of problems. And obviously you get a disease that you have no idea what to do about, and people try to muddle through the best they can. All right, now we are going to move on and we’ll talk about abortion where there is always lots of news.

Here in Washington, there is a giant inflatable IUD flying over Union Station Wednesday to highlight what seems to be Contraception Week on Capitol Hill. Not coincidentally, it’s also the anniversary this week of the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling Griswold v. Connecticut that created the right to birth control. Alice, what are Democrats, particularly in the Senate where they’re in charge, doing to try to highlight these potential threats to contraceptive access?

Ollstein: So this vote that happened that was blocked because only two Republicans crossed the aisle to support this Right to Contraception bill — it’s the two you expect, it’s [Sen.] Lisa Murkowski and [Sen.] Susan Collins — and you’re already seeing Democrats really make hay of this. Both Democrats and their campaign arms and outside allied groups are planning to just absolutely blitz this in ads. They’re holding events in swing states related to it, and they’re going hard against individual Republicans for their votes.

I think the Republicans I talked to who voted no, they had a funny mixed message about why they were voting no on it. They were both saying that the bill was this sinister Trojan horse for forcing religious groups to promote contraception and even abortion and also gender-affirming care somehow. But also, the bill was a pointless stunt that wouldn’t really do anything because there is no threat to contraception. But also Republicans have their own rival bill to promote access to contraception.

So access to contraception isn’t a problem, but please support my bill to improve access to contraception. It’s a tough message. Whereas Democrats’ message is a lot simpler. You can argue with it on the merits, but it’s a lot simpler. They point to the fact that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has expressed interest and actually called on the court to revisit precedents that protect the right to contraception.

Lots of states have thwarted attempts to enact protections for contraception. And a lot of anti-abortion groups have really made a big push to muddy the waters on medical understanding of what is contraception versus what is abortion, which we can get into later.

Rovner: Yes, which we will. Sandhya, did you want to add something?

Raman: Yeah, and I think that something that I would add to what Alice was saying is just how this is kind of at the same time a little bit different for the Democrats. Something that I wrote about this week was just that after the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] decision, we had the then-Democratic House vote on several different bills, but the Democrats have not really been holding this chamber-wide vote on bills related to abortion, contraception for the most part. And so this was the first time that they are stepping into that.

They’ve done the unanimous consent requests on a lot of these bills. And even just a couple months ago when talks are really heating up on IVF, there’s other things that we have to get to, appropriations and things like that, and this would just get bogged down. And they were shying away from taking floor time to do this. So I think that was an interesting move that they’re doing this now and that they’re going to vote on an IVF next week and whatever else next down the line.

Rovner: Yeah, I noticed that as soon as this bill went down, Sen. [Chuck] Schumer teed up the Right to IVF bill for a vote next week. But Alice, as you were alluding to, I mean, where this gets really uncomfortable for Republicans is that fine line between contraception and abortion. Our colleague Lauren Weber has a story about this this week [“Conservative Attacks on Birth Control Could Threaten Access,”], which is your extra credit, so why don’t you tell us about it?

Ollstein: Yeah. So she did a really great job highlighting how, especially at the state level where a lot of these battles are playing out, anti-abortion groups that are very influential are making arguments that certain forms of birth control are abortifacients. This is completely disputed by medical experts and the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] that regulates these products. They say, just to be clear about what we’re talking about, we’re talking about some forms of emergency contraception, which is taken after sex to prevent pregnancy. It is not an abortifacient. It won’t work if you’re already pregnant. It prevents pregnancy. It does not terminate a pregnancy. They are also saying this about some IUDs, intrauterine devices, and even about some hormonal birth control pills.

So there’s been pushback that Lauren detailed in her story, including from some Republicans who are trying to correct the record. But this misinformation is getting really entrenched, and I think it’s something we should all be paying attention to when it crops up, especially in the mouths of people in power.

Rovner: I mean, when I first started writing about it it was not entirely clear. There was thought that one of the ways the morning-after pill worked was by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg, which some people consider, if you consider that fertilization and not implantation, is the beginning of life. According to doctors, implantation is the beginning of pregnancy, among other things, because that’s when you can test for it.

But those who believe that fertilization is the beginning of life — and therefore something that prevents implantation is an abortion — were concerned that IUDs, and mostly progesterone-based birth control that prevented implantation, were abortifacients. Except that in the years since, it’s been shown that that’s not the case.

Ollstein: Right.

Rovner: That in fact, both IUDs and the morning-after pill work by preventing ovulation. There is no fertilized egg because there’s no egg. So they are not abortifacients. On the other hand, the FDA changed the labeling on the morning-after pill because of this. And yet the Hobby Lobby case [Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.] that the decision was written by Justice [Samuel] Alito, basically took that premise, that they were allowed to not offer these forms of contraception because they believed that they were acted as abortifacients, even though science suggests that they didn’t. It’s not something new, and it’s not something I don’t think is going to go away anytime in the near future.

Raman: I would add that it also came up in this week’s Senate Health [Committee] hearing, that line of questioning about whether or not different parts of birth control were abortifacients. Sen. [Patty] Murray did that line of questioning with Dr. Christina Francis, who’s the head of the anti-abortion obstetrician-gynecology group and went through on Plan B, IUDs and different things. And there was a back and forth of evading questions, but she did call IUDs as abortifacients, which goes back to the same thing that we’re saying.

Rovner: Right, which they have done all along.

Ollstein: Yeah. I mean, I think this really spotlights a challenge here, which is that Republicans’ response to votes like this week and things that are playing out in the state level, they’re scoffing and saying, “It’s absolutely ridiculous to suggest that Republicans are trying to ban birth control. This is completely a political concoction by Democrats to scare people into voting for them in November.”

What we’re talking about here are not bans on birth control, but there are policies that have been introduced at both the state and federal level that would make birth control, especially certain forms like we were just talking about, way harder to access. So there are proposals to carve them out of Obamacare’s contraception mandate, so they’re not covered by insurance.

That’s not a ban. You can still go pay out-of-pocket, but I remember all the people who were paying out-of-pocket for IUDs before Obamacare: hundreds and hundreds of dollars for something that is now completely free. And so what we’re seeing right now are not bans, but I think it’s important to think about the ways it would still restrict access for a lot of people.

Rovner: Before we leave the nation’s capital it seems that the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on the abortion pill may not be the last word on the case. While it seemed likely from the oral arguments that the justices will agree that the Texas doctors who brought the case don’t have standing, there were three state attorneys general who sought to become part of the case when it was first considered back in Texas. So it would go back to Judge [Matthew] Kacsmaryk, our original judge who said that the entire abortion pill approval should be overturned. It feels like this is not the end of fighting about the abortion pill’s approval at the federal level. I mean, I assume that that’s something that the drug industry, among others, won’t be happy about.

Ollstein: Courts could find that the states don’t have standing either, that this policy does not harm them in any real way. In fact, Democratic attorneys general have argued the exact opposite, that the availability of mifepristone helps states: saves a lot of money; it prevents pregnancy; it treats people’s medical needs. So obviously, Kacsmaryk has a very long anti-abortion record and has sided with these challenges in a lot of cases. But that doesn’t mean that this would necessarily go anywhere.

But your bigger point that the Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling on mifepristone is not the end, it certainly is not. There’s going to be a lot more court challenges, some already in motion. There’s going to be state-level policy fights. There’s going to be federal-level policy fights. If Trump is elected, groups want him to do a lot of things through executive order to restrict mifepristone or remove it from the market entirely through the FDA. So yes, this is not going to be over for the foreseeable future.

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, in a case that might be over for the foreseeable future, the Texas Supreme Court last week officially rejected the case brought by 20 women who nearly died when they were unable to get timely care for pregnancy complications. The justices said in their ruling that while the women definitely did suffer, the fault lay with the doctors who declined to treat them rather than the vagueness of the state’s abortion ban. So where does that leave the debate about medical exceptions?

Ollstein: So anti-abortion groups’ response to a lot of the challenges to these abortion bans and stories about women in medical emergencies who are getting denied care and suffering real harm as a result, their response has been that there’s nothing wrong with the law. The law is perfectly clear, and that doctors are either accidentally or intentionally misinterpreting the law for political reasons. Meanwhile, doctors say it’s not clear at all. It’s not clear how honestly close to dead someone has to be in order to receive an abortion.

Rovner: And it’s not just in Texas. This is true in a bunch of states, right? The doctors don’t know …

Ollstein: In many states.

Rovner: … right? …

Ollstein: Exactly.

Rovner: … when they can intervene.

Ollstein: Right. And so I think the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Law], which we’ve talked about, could give some indication either way of what doctors are and are not able to do, but that won’t really resolve it either. There is still so much gray area. And so patients and doctors are going to state courts to plead for clarity. They’re going to their legislatures to plead for clarity. And they’re going to state medical boards, including in Texas, to plead for clarity. And so far, they have not gotten any.

Most legislatures have been unwilling to revisit their bans and clarify or expand the exceptions even as these stories play out on the ground of doctors who say, “I know that providing an abortion for this patient is the right thing medically and ethically to do, but I’m so afraid of being hit with criminal charges that I put the patient on a plane out of state instead.” Yeah, it’s just really tough.

And so what we wrote about it is we keep talking about doctors being torn between conflicting state and federal law, and that’s absolutely true, but what we dug into is that the state law just looms so much larger than the federal laws. So when you’re weighing, should I maybe violate EMTALA or should I maybe violate my state’s ban, they’re not going to want to violate their state’s ban because that means jail time, that means losing their license, that means having their freedom and their livelihood taken away.

Whereas an EMTALA violation may or may not mean a fine somewhere down the road. The enforcement has not been as aggressive at the federal level from the Biden administration as a lot of doctors would like it to be. And so, in that environment, they’re really deferring to the state law, and that means some people are not getting care that they maybe need.

Rovner: I say in the meantime, we had yet another jury just last week about a woman who had a miscarriage and could not get a D&C [dilation and curettage procedure] basically. When she went in there was no fetal heartbeat, but she ended up miscarrying at home and almost dying. She was sent away, I believe, from three different facilities. This continues to happen because doctors are concerned about when it is appropriate for them to intervene. And they seem, you’re right, to be leaning towards the “let’s not get in trouble with the state” law, so let’s wait to provide care as long as we think we can.

Well, moving on, we have two stories this week about efforts to treat post-traumatic stress disorder, particularly in military veterans. On Tuesday, an FDA advisory committee recommended against approval of the psychedelic MDMA, better known as ecstasy, for the treatment of PTSD. My understanding is that the panel didn’t reject the idea outright that this could be helpful, only that there isn’t enough evidence yet to approve it. Was I reading that right? Rachel, you guys covered this pretty closely.

Cohrs Zhang: Yes. Yeah, my colleagues did cover this. Certainly I think what’s a discouraging sign, I don’t think there’s any way around it, for some of these companies that are looking at psychedelics and trying to figure out some sort of approval pathway for conditions like PTSD.

One of my colleagues, Meghana Keshavan, she chatted with a dozen companies yesterday and they were trying to put a positive spin on it, that having some opinion or some discussion of a treatment like this by the advisory committee could lay out more clear standards for what companies would have to present in order to get something approved. So I think obviously they have a vested interest in spinning this positively.

But it is a very innovative space and certainly was a short-term setback. But it certainly isn’t a long-term issue if some of these companies are able to present stronger evidence or better trial design. I think there were some questions about whether trial participants actually could figure out whether they were placebo or not, which if you’re taking psychedelic drugs, yeah, that’s kind of a challenge in terms of trial design.

So I think there are some interesting questions, and I am confident that this’ll be something the FDA and industry is going to have to figure out in a space that’s new like this.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s been interesting to follow. Well, in something that does seem to help, one of the first controlled studies of service dogs to treat PTSD has found that man’s best friend can be a therapist as well. Those veterans who got specially trained dogs showed much more improvement in their symptoms than those who were on the doggy wait list as determined by professionals who didn’t know who had the dogs and who didn’t. So pet therapy for the win here?

Raman: I mean, this is the biggest study of this kind that we’ve had so far, and it seems promising. I think one thing will be interesting is if there’s more research, if this would change policy down the line for the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] or other agencies to be able to get these kinds of service dogs in the hands of more vets.

Rovner: Yeah, I know there’s a huge demand for these kinds of service dogs. I know a lot of people who basically have started training service dogs for veterans. Obviously they were able to do this study because there was a long wait list. They were able to look at people who were waiting but hadn’t gotten a dog yet. So at least in the short term, possibly some help for some people.

Finally this week, in a segment I’m calling “Misery Loves Company,” it’s not just the U.S. where big health systems are getting cyberhacked. Across the pond, quoting here from the BBC, major hospitals in London have declared a critical incident after a cyberattack led to operations being canceled and emergency patients being diverted elsewhere. This sounds painfully familiar.

Maybe we need an international cybercrime fighting agency. Is there one? Is there at least, do we know, is there a task force working on this? Obviously the bigger, more centralized your health care system, the bigger problem this becomes, as we saw with Change Healthcare belonging to United[Healthcare], and this is now … I guess it’s a contractor that works for the NHS [National Health Service]. You can see the potential for really bad stuff here.

Cohrs Zhang: That’s a good question about some international standards, Julie, but I think what we have seen is Sen. Ron Wyden, who leads the Senate Finance Committee, did write to HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] this week and asked HHS to add to multiple-factor authentication as a condition of participation for some of these facilities to try to institute standards that way.

And again, I think there are questions about how much HHS can actually do, but I think it’s a signal that Congress might not want to do anything or think they can do anything if they’re asking the administration to do something here. But we’re still in the very early stages of systems viewing this as worthy of investment and just education about some of the best practices here.

Yeah, certainly it’s going to be a business opportunity for some consulting firms to help these hospitals increase their cybersecurity measures and certainly will be a global market if we see these attacks continue in other places, too.

Rovner: Maybe our health records will be as protected as our Spotify accounts. It would apparently be a step forward. All right, well, that is the news for this week. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Bram Sable-Smith, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast my KFF Health News colleague Bram Sable-Smith, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” about a free cruise that turned out to be anything but. Welcome back to the podcast, Bram.

Bram Sable-Smith: Thanks for having me.

Rovner: So tell us about this month’s patient, who he is, and what happened to him. This is one of the wilder Bills of the Month, I think.

Sable-Smith: Right. So his name is Vincent Wasney. He lives in Saginaw, Michigan. Never been on an airplane before, neither had his [fiancée], Sarah. But when they bought their first house in 2019, their Realtor, as a gift, gifted them tickets for a cruise. My Realtor gave me a tote bag. So, what a Realtor, first of all! What an incredible gift.

Rovner: My Realtor gave me a wine opener, which I do still use.

Sable-Smith: If it sailed to the Caribbean, it’d be equivalent. So their cruise got delayed because of the pandemic, but they set sail in December 2022. And they were having a great time. One of the highlights of their trip was they went to this private island called CocoCay for Royal Caribbean guests, and it included an excursion to go swimming with pigs.

Rovner: Wild pigs, right?

Sable-Smith: Wild pigs, a big fancy water park, all kinds of food. They were having a great time. But it’s also on that island that Vincent started feeling off. And so in the past, Vincent has had seizures. About 10 years earlier, he had had a few seizures. They decided he was probably epileptic, and he was on medicine for a while. He went off the medicine because they were worried about liver damage, and he’d been relatively seizure-free for a long time. It’d been a long time since he’d had a seizure.

But when he was on that island having a great time, it’s when he started to feel off. And when they got back on the cruise ship for the last full day of the cruise, he had a seizure in his room. And he was taken down to the medical center on the cruise ship and he was observed. He was given fluids for a while, and then sent back to his room, where he had a second seizure. Once again, went down to the medical center on the ship, where he had a third seizure. It was time to get him off the boat. He needed to get onto land and go to a hospital. And so they were close enough to land that they were able to do the evacuation by boat instead of having to do something like a helicopter to do a medevac that way. And so a rescue boat came to the ship. He was lowered off the ship. He was in a stretcher and it was lowered down to the rescue boat by a rope.

His fiancée, Sarah, climbed down a rope ladder to get into the boat as well to go with them to land. And then he was taken to land in an ambulance ride to the hospital, et cetera. But, before they were allowed to disembark, they were given their bill and told “It’s time to pay this. You have to pay this bill.”

Rovner: And how much was it?

Sable-Smith: So the bill for the medical services was $2,500. This was a free cruise. They had budgeted to pay for internet, $150 for internet. They had budgeted to pay for their alcoholic drinks. They had budgeted to pay for their tips. So they had saved up a few hundred dollars, which is what they thought would be their bill at the end of this cruise. Now, that completely exploded into this $2,500 bill just for medical expenses alone.

And as they’re waiting to evacuate the ship, they’re like, “We can’t pay this. We don’t have this money.” So that led to some negotiations. They ended up basically taking all the money out of their bank accounts, including their mortgage payment. They maxed out Vincent’s credit card, but they were still $1,000 short. And they later learned once they were on land that Vincent’s credit card had been overdrafted by $1,000 to cover that additional expense.

Rovner: So it turns out that he was uninsured at the time, and we’ll talk about that in a minute. But even if he had had insurance, the cruise ship wasn’t going to let him off the boat until he paid in full, even though it was an emergency? Did I read that right?

Sable-Smith: That’s certainly the feeling that they had at the time. When Vincent was short the $1,000, eventually they were let off the ship, but they did end up, as we said, getting that credit card overdrafted. But I think what’s important to note here is that even though he was uninsured at the time, even if he had had insurance, and even if he had had travel insurance, which he also did not have at the time, which we can talk about, he still would’ve been required to pay upfront and then submit the receipts later to try to get reimbursed for the payments.

And that’s because on the cruise’s website, they explain that they do not accept “land-based health insurance plans” when they’re on the vessel.

Rovner: In fact, as you mentioned, a lot of health insurance doesn’t cover care on a cruise ship or, in fact, anywhere outside the United States. So lots of people buy travel insurance in case they have a medical emergency. Why didn’t they?

Sable-Smith: So travel insurance is often purchased when you purchase the tickets. You’ll buy a ticket to the cruise and then it will prompt you, say, “Hey, do you want some travel insurance to protect you while you’re on this ship?” And that’s the way that most people are buying travel insurance. Well, remember, this cruise was a gift from their realtors, so they never bought the ticket. So they never got that prompting to say, “Hey, time to buy some travel insurance to protect yourself on the trip.”

And again, these were inexperienced travelers. They’d never been on an airplane before. The furthest either one of them had been from Michigan was Vincent went to Washington, D.C., one time on a school trip. And so they didn’t really know what travel insurance was. They knew it existed. But as Vincent explained, he said, “I thought this was for lost luggage and trip cancellations. I didn’t realize that this was something for medical expenses you might incur when you’re out at sea.”

Rovner: And it’s really both. I mean, it is for lost luggage and cancellation, right?

Sable-Smith: And it is for lost luggage and cancellation. Yeah, that’s right.

Rovner: So what eventually happened to Vincent and what eventually happened to the bill?

Sable-Smith: Well, once he got taken to the hospital, he got an additional bill, or actually several additional bills, one from the hospital, two from a couple doctors who saw him at the hospital who billed separately, and also one from the ambulance services. As we know, he had already drained his bank account and maxed out his credit card and had it overdrafted to cover the expenses on the ship. So he was working on paying those off. And then for the additional bills he incurred on land, he had set up payment plans, really small ones, $25, $50 a month, but going to four separate entities.

He actually missed a couple payments on his bill to the hospital, and that ended up getting sent to collections. Again, none of these are charging interest, but these are still quite some burdens. And so he was paying them off bit by bit by bit. He set up a GoFundMe campaign, which is something that a lot of people end up doing who never expect to have to cover these kinds of emergency expenses, or reach out publicly for help like that. And they got quite a bit of help from family and friends. Including, Vincent picked up Frisbee golf during the pandemic, and he’s made quite a lot of good friends that way. And that community really came through for them as well. So with those GoFundMe payments, they were able to make their house payment. It was helpful with some of these bills that they had lingering leftover from the cruise.

Rovner: So what’s the takeaway here, other than that nothing that seems free is ever really free?

Sable-Smith: Yeah, right. Well, the takeaway is to be informed before you leave about a plan for how are you going to cover medical expenses when you’re going traveling. I think this is something that a lot of people are going to be doing this summer, going on vacations. I’ve got vacations planned. What’s your plan for covering medical expenses? And if you’re leaving the country, if you’re going on a cruise, someplace where your land-based American health insurance might not cover you, you should consider travel insurance.

And when you’re considering travel insurance, they come in all sorts of varieties. So you want to make sure that they’re going to cover your particular cases. So some plans, for example, won’t cover pre-existing conditions. Some plans won’t cover care for risky activities like rock climbing. So you want to know what you’re going to be doing during your trip, and you want to make sure when you’re purchasing travel insurance to find a plan that’s going to cover your particular needs.

Rovner: Very well explained. Bram Sable-Smith, thank you very much.

Sable-Smith: Always a pleasure.

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

Raman: So my extra credit is “Roanoke’s Requiem,” and it’s an Air Mail from Clara Molot. And this is a really interesting piece. So at least 16 alumni from the classes of 2011 to 2019 of Roanoke have been diagnosed with cancer since 2010, which is a much higher rate when compared to the rate for 20-somethings in the U.S. and 15-times-higher mortality rate. And so the piece does some looking at some of the work that’s being done to uncover why this is happening.

Rovner: It’s quite a scary story. Rachel?

Cohrs Zhang: Yes. So the story I chose, it was co-published by ProPublica in Mississippi Today. The headline is “This Mississippi Hospital Transfers Some Patients to Jail to Await Mental Health Treatment,” by Isabelle Taft. And I mean, truly such a harrowing story of … obviously we know that there’s capacity issues with mental health treatment, but the idea that patients would be involuntarily committed, go to a hospital, and then be transferred to a jail having committed no crime, having no recourse.

I mean, some of these detentions happened. It was like two months long where these patients who are already suffering are then thrown out of their comfortable environments into jail as they awaited county facilities to open up spots for them. And I think the story also did a good job of pointing out that other jurisdictions had found other solutions to this other than placing suffering people in jail. So yeah, it just felt like it was a really great classic example of investigative journalism that’ll have an impact.

Rovner: Local investigative journalism — not just investigative journalism — which is really rare, yet it was a really good piece. Well, my extra credit this week is from Jessica Valenti, who writes a super-helpful newsletter called Abortion, Every Day. Usually it’s an aggregation of stories from around the country, but this week she also has her own exclusive [“EXCLUSIVE: Health Data Breach at America’s Largest Crisis Pregnancy Org,”] about how Heartbeat International, which runs the nation’s largest network of crisis pregnancy centers, is collecting and sharing private health data, including due dates, dates of last menstrual periods, addresses, and even family living arrangements.

Isn’t this a violation of HIPAA, you may ask? Well, probably not, because HIPAA only applies to health care providers and insurers and the vast majority of crisis pregnancy centers don’t deliver medical care. You don’t need a medical license to give a pregnancy test or even do an ultrasound. Among other things, personal health data has been used for training sales staff, and until recently was readily available to anyone on the web without password protection. It’s a pretty eye-opening story.

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

Raman: @SandhyaWrites.

Rovner: Alice?

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein.

Rovner: Rachel?

Cohrs Zhang: @rachelcohrs.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

June means it’s time for the Supreme Court to render rulings on the biggest and most controversial cases of the term. This year, the court has two significant abortion-related cases: one involving the abortion pill mifepristone and the other regarding the conflict between a federal emergency care law and Idaho’s near-total abortion ban.

Also awaiting resolution is a case that could dramatically change how the federal government makes health care (and all other types of) policies by potentially limiting agencies’ authority in interpreting the details of laws through regulations. Rules stemming from the Affordable Care Act and other legislation could be affected.

In this special episode of “What the Health?”, Laurie Sobel, an associate director for women’s health policy at KFF, joins host Julie Rovner for a refresher on the cases, and a preview of how the justices might rule on them. 

The cases highlighted in this episode:

• Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce, about how much discretion federal agencies should have in interpreting laws passed by Congress.
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, about whether the FDA exceeded its authority in relaxing restrictions on the abortion pill mifepristone.
• Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States, about whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act requirement for hospitals participating in Medicare to provide needed medical care overrides Idaho’s near-total abortion ban in emergency cases.

Previous “What the Health?” coverage of these cases:

• KFF Health News' 'What the Health?': Abortion — Again — At the Supreme Court

  Apr 24, 2024

• KFF Health News' 'What the Health?': The Supreme Court and the Abortion Pill

  Mar 28, 2024

• KFF Health News' 'What the Health?': Health Enters the Presidential Race

  Jan 25, 2024

• KFF Health News' 'What the Health?': The Supreme Court vs. the Bureaucracy

  Jan 18, 2024

Where to find Supreme Court opinions as they are announced:

• The Supreme Court’s official website
•  The SCOTUSblog (not an official government website but run by lawyers and journalists)

Click to open the Transcript

Transcript: Waiting for SCOTUS

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

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News. We’re taping this week on Wednesday, May 29, at 1 p.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So here we go.

Because it’s a holiday week and health news is a little bit slow, we’re going to do something a little different. It’s about to be June, and that means the Supreme Court is going to issue opinions in some of the biggest cases argued this past term, including two abortion-related cases and one that could literally disrupt the way the entire federal government operates. I’m not sure I remember all the details of these cases, even though we have talked about them all on the podcast. So I’ve asked someone here to remind us what they’re about and give us a preview of how the court might rule in some of them. Laurie Sobel is associate director for women’s health policy here at KFF, and one of our top in-house legal experts. Laurie, welcome to “What the Health?” Thanks for joining us.

Laurie Sobel: Hi, Julie. It’s great to be here.

Rovner: So I thought we’d take the cases in the order they were argued before the court, although I know that’s not necessarily the order that we will see the opinions issued in. First up: In January, the justices heard arguments in two cases about, of all things, herring fishing. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. But these cases are about a lot more than herring and could affect a lot more than the Department of Commerce, right?

Sobel: Absolutely. These cases are about what’s called the Chevron doctrine [deference], which requires courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of a law when the law is silent or ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable.

Rovner: And what would an example of that be?

Sobel: Oh, there’s many, many examples. Essentially, Congress doesn’t fill in the details of many laws, and they rely on agencies to fill in those details, assuming that the agency has the expertise to figure out what those details might be. And also, many times the details change as new scientific evidence becomes available or there’s changed circumstances, or there’s a pandemic or something in which the agency needs to respond to.

Rovner: This is basically the entire federal regulatory process we’re talking about here, right?

Sobel: That’s correct.

Rovner: And in health care, there’s a lot of places that regulation affects.

Sobel: Absolutely. So Congress relies on the agencies to implement laws, the ACA [Affordable Care Act], Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP [Children’s Health Insurance Program]. So there’s a lot in health care. In addition, Title X is regulated by the Office of Population Affairs, and those also have regulations. So overturning Chevron would make it very difficult for Congress to continue to rely on agencies to fill in these gaps and to react to real-time situations.

Rovner: And there’s private entities that get regulated, are freaked out by the possibility that they won’t be able to rely on the agencies either.

Sobel: Absolutely. So everything from payment rates to providers and hospitals to negotiating prescription drug prices for the Medicare program. The ACA, I think, has probably more regulations than most laws. And relationship — we’ll talk about the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] in the next case, but the FDA also sets out regulations as does CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], and we really rely on those agencies to have the scientific expertise to react to the situation. So if Congress has to either fill in all the gaps, which is by most people’s assessment impossible, it might really stall how things get implemented and/or create a whole lot of new litigation.

Rovner: And I would say it would give courts a whole lot more authority than they have now, right?

Sobel: Certainly. So right now, the rule is that the agency’s interpretation stands as long as the law is ambiguous or silent and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable. This would give that power back to the courts to then guess what Congress meant or to interpret what Congress meant.

Rovner: Somebody I was talking to about this case suggested that, I hadn’t really thought about before, that if Chevron were to get struck down, that those who had sued over regulations and lost might be able to go back and reopen those cases. I mean, it could just be a flood of litigation.

Sobel: Absolutely. And that came up during oral argument about what would that mean for all the settled cases. And both sides offered different interpretations with the solicitor general arguing that it would really open up this can of worms to tons of litigation, and the plaintiffs essentially saying, “No, no, no, we could let those all stand and just going forward, the Chevron deference would be undone.” And there were some hints that maybe some compromises like that between the justices as they were talking.

Rovner: Exactly. You’re anticipating my next question, which is did we get any hints from the oral arguments about where they might be going with this case? It’s hard to imagine them just completely overturning Chevron.

Sobel: It is hard to imagine, but there are some justices that have been known to wanting to overturn Chevron for quite some time. So in that category I would put Justices [Clarence] Thomas and [Samuel] Alito, as well as [Neil] Gorsuch, as justices that have really been critical of the Chevron deference. Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh highlighted that the rules change when administrations change, and so he tried to counter the argument that there’s a reliance on Chevron for stability. He said, “Wait, wait, wait a minute. Every time there’s a new president, the rules change. So what kind of stability is that?”

Chief Justice [John] Roberts and [Justice Amy Coney] Barrett were really harder to read, and that might be where the decision relies on, where they come out and whether or not they’re able to forge a compromise with the three liberal justices who indicated support for keeping Chevron; both because of precedent, as well as they pointed out examples where they said, “We’re not subject matter experts here. We don’t want to be making these decisions.” Justice [Elena] Kagan was talking about AI and how that would change, and “we really don’t want to be in the position of Justice Kagan figuring out how that should be regulated.”

Rovner: Well, that seems to be an excellent segue to the next case, which is an abortion case concerning the availability of the abortion pill mifepristone. The case, which was argued in March, is called Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Let’s start, because it’s about to become important, with what is the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine? And what did their members have against the abortion pill?

Sobel: Well, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine is a newly formed anti-abortion advocacy coalition. It was formed specifically for this litigation. And they contend that they have members, which are doctors and organizations and associations, in Texas and around the country, who have treated and will continue to treat people who have experienced a complication from medication abortion. So to be clear, none of their members prescribe mifepristone. They don’t believe in abortion. They don’t want to have anything to do with abortion. But their contention is that they are injured based upon having to divert their time and resources away from their regular patients when they have to treat somebody who has had a side effect from mifepristone. Similarly, the association and organizations contend that they’ve had to divert their time to educate people about the dangers of medication abortion.

Rovner: So those are the plaintiffs. And, as you mentioned, some of them are in Texas and they sued in Texas very specifically to get a certain judge, right?

Sobel: Yes, to get Judge [Matthew] Kacsmaryk, who is known for being friendly to these types of cases.

Rovner: So Judge Kacsmaryk, who as you say, is known to be friendly to these types of cases, originally ruled that mifepristone’s entire approval should be rescinded. It was approved in the year 2000, so it’s been on the market for quite a long time. But that’s actually not what’s on the table at the moment before the justices. Explain how we got there.

Sobel: So that decision was then appealed to the 5th Circuit, and the 5th Circuit said, “We’re not going to roll back the original approval of mifepristone to the year 2000, but instead we’ll roll back the requirements to 2011 and say that those are the rules that should be enforced, and that the FDA exceeded their authority in changing the rules since 2011.”

Rovner: And some of those changed rules basically made it easier to get, and you could use it a little bit later into pregnancy because it was found to be safe, right?

Sobel: Exactly. So what those new rules have done is said that you can use it up to 10 weeks instead of seven weeks, that you don’t have to be in person to receive it. So the newest rules have opened up the possibility of using it for telehealth abortion, and also for pharmacists prescribing it. And so if the Supreme Court were to affirm the 5th Circuit’s decision, that would eliminate these new protocols the FDA has established in removing the in-person dispensing requirement, permitting telehealth abortions, and establishing the process for pharmacies to become certified to dispense mifepristone. In addition, it would roll back the gestational ages you just said, from 10 weeks to seven weeks, which is significant because, according to the CDC data, more than 4 in 10 medication abortions occur at seven weeks or later.

Rovner: I was going to say, and yeah, this could be super disruptive. I mean medication abortion is now more than half of all abortions in this country.

Sobel: Oh, it’s two-thirds.

Rovner: So without banning it, making it harder to get could have a big impact.

Sobel: Oh, absolutely. Medication abortion now accounts for nearly two-thirds of all abortions, and telehealth abortions have become very common, from the latest data that we have from WeCount, 1 in 5 abortions was provided via telehealth in December of 2023. So that’s one in all abortions, not one in medication abortions. So that’s quite a big number.

Rovner: Now, this case, even though it could be very disruptive to abortion, is about a whole lot more than abortion. Drugmakers in general seem pretty concerned by the idea of judges making scientific decisions that overrule the FDA. This hearkens back to the last case we talked about, right?

Sobel: Oh, absolutely. So this is the first case to ask the Supreme Court to overrule an FDA decision that a drug is safe and effective. So the outcome of this case could really have very far-reaching implications for the FDA’s authority to continue to regulate not only mifepristone, but a wide range of other drugs. And most likely the other drugs that are perceived to be controversial — gender-affirming care or PrEP — those are the drugs that are most likely to be litigated if this door is opened.

Rovner: And I know that there’s nothing that makes drugmakers … I mean, patent issues and drugmakers and court issues are hard enough, the idea that they could be granted approval by the FDA and then somebody could just come in and sue and make that go away.

Sobel: Oh, absolutely. This got the attention of the entire industry. There were many, many amicus briefs that were filed.

Rovner: So normally you can’t really tell from the oral arguments, as we said, how the justices are leaning. But in this case, the justices seemed fairly transparent about where we think they’re going to go. What are we expecting here?

Sobel: Yes. I mean, as I said before, it’s always dangerous to read the tea leaves too much, but this did seem more transparent than most, and that most justices seemed not convinced that the plaintiffs in this case have legal standing, which requires that you have an injury and that injury can be addressed by what the court decides. So even assuming that the plaintiffs have an injury, the question is what would happen if we roll back the rules that the FDA has back to 2011? Does that make it more or less likely that these plaintiffs would see people with side effects of mifepristone? It’s not really clear. In addition, many of the justices, including Justice Barrett, really pushed back on the lawyer representing the Alliance for where in the doctors’ affidavits it said they were actually participating in something they objected to. Notably, not really about necessarily this case, but about what might come up in the future, both Justice Thomas and Alito did bring up the Comstock Act and signaled that they would uphold the enforcement of the Comstock Act, pretty much inviting a future case or a future administration to enforce the Comstock Act.

Rovner: As much as we’ve talked about it, remind us again what the Comstock Act is.

Sobel: Sure. So it’s a law from 1873, which was an anti-obscenity law, and as part of it, it banned the mailing of any drug or device or instrument that could be used for abortion.

Rovner: Well, I guess during the entirety of Roe [v. Wade], it was irrelevant, right? Because abortion was legal,

Sobel: Right. And it’s been dormant. I mean, we can’t find any enforcement in any modern era.

Rovner: Yes, so it goes back a long ways, but it’s top of mind for a lot of people.

All right, moving on to our last case. On April 24, the court heard Idaho v. United States and Moyle v. United States, both of which challenged the federal government’s interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, EMTALA, to override Idaho’s near-complete abortion ban, at least in medical emergencies. Let’s start by explaining what EMTALA is and how it relates to abortion?

Sobel: Sure. So EMTALA requires hospitals that participate in Medicare, which is pretty much every acute hospital, to provide stabilizing treatment within the hospital’s capability when there’s an emergency medical condition, which includes when the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to place the health of the individual in serious jeopardy or serious impairments of bodily functions. So it was really intended as an anti-dumping law initially so that people who were uninsured weren’t just transferred or sent away to another hospital because they didn’t have the capacity to pay.

Idaho’s abortion ban only has an exception for life. It doesn’t have an exception to preserve the health of the pregnant person. And so the Biden administration sued Idaho and said this law then, essentially, puts these hospitals that have this requirement, because they accept Medicare payments, to stabilize patients. And when that care includes abortion care, they’re required to provide that under federal law. So the question is, does the EMTALA preempt the Idaho abortion ban?

It’s clear from the oral argument that Idaho’s position is that there is no conflict because they read into the EMTALA law that “within the hospital’s capability” includes the laws of Idaho and that Idaho gets to set the standard of care, and that that’s up to states, not up to the federal government. Whereas the federal government, the Biden administration’s position, is that, no, EMTALA specifically was an antidumping law, and that includes stabilizing all patients regardless of the care. And we don’t have to say including abortion in order for it to include abortion, it includes all care that’s required to stabilize patients.

Rovner: Of course, a lot of anti-abortion activists will say that the only time abortion is medically necessary is when it threatens life and that would be covered. But we’re seeing that that’s not necessarily the case, right? I mean, we’re seeing individual instances of this these days.

Sobel: Yeah. I mean, we know from Idaho that many patients have been helicoptered out of the state into nearby states that also have some abortion restrictions but just aren’t as restrictive as Idaho is, because they’re going to become septic or they’re going to lose kidney function, or they’re going to lose their reproductive organs. So they’re not in danger of losing their life immediately, but they’re in danger of losing serious bodily functions.

The other question that came up during oral argument was about just how imminent the life needs to be. And this comes down to how this is putting doctors in a pretty uncomfortable place. So yes, the doctors are permitted to provide abortion care in Idaho when they can certify in good faith that without the abortion care, the person’s life is endangered. But they’re concerned that, after the fact, attorneys for the state could come back and say, “Oh, wait a minute, that wasn’t your really good-faith decision and we’re going to prosecute you and we’re going to bring in our own expert.” And the question is really, how much should doctors have on the line? It’s a criminal statute, so there’s jail time involved. Of course, there’s a loss of license. And so how far out should doctors be required to go? And this is, again, it’s making people really uncomfortable, and there are anecdotes of people leaving the state because of this and not feeling comfortable practicing there.

Rovner: More than anecdotes of people leaving the state, there are people who come forward and said they’re leaving the state. And as a result, some hospitals are having to shut down their OB services. I mean, because when the doctors, OB-GYNs who are leaving, so in the ironic position of people who are having babies not being able to find someone who can deliver their baby at the same time.

Sobel: Right, right.

Rovner: That’s obviously one ramification within Idaho, but there could be ramifications outside just on the idea: Isn’t federal law supposed to trump state law? Isn’t that sort of a basic foundation of how we work?

Sobel: Yes. The supremacy clause is pretty basic when you go to law school. So yes. And I think how they word this decision will be very interesting to see because it’s a question of, is there a conflict or is there not? And the attorneys for Idaho were basically suggesting that there’s no conflict. So you don’t even need to say that there’s a preemption. You just have to find that there’s no conflict between Idaho law and EMTALA.

However they rule, if they rule for Idaho and say that you’re allowed to continue having this abortion ban that only has a life exception with no health exception, immediately, there’s four additional states with abortion bans that do not make exceptions for health as well. And those states are Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. So in those states, like Idaho, a hospital cannot legally provide an abortion as stabilizing treatment when a person presents with a health endangerment and not a life endangerment. And so again, those risks can include sepsis, kidney failure, loss of fertility, they’re serious risks, even though they may not be life-threatening at the moment.

And even in the states that do have exceptions for health, we have seen that those exceptions are often very narrow and vague and hard to be implemented in real time. So pregnant people can still be denied emergency abortion care that’s needed to preserve their health, even in states that have a health exception. And if EMTALA doesn’t act as a backstop to say, “But wait, hospital, you’re violating this federal law,” then people are stuck with the state law that is narrow and vague.

Rovner: So I mean, overturning Roe, the justices says, “Oh, great, we won’t have to deal with abortion anymore. It’s all about the states.” But as we can see, it’s not all about the states. The Supreme Court is going to have to continue to deal with this issue.

Sobel: Right. Definitely.

Rovner: All right, well, finally, just a couple of housekeeping issues. We don’t actually know when these decisions will come, right? People who don’t follow the court on a regular basis often think that opinions are scheduled the same way oral arguments are, but it’s always a surprise.

Sobel: Unfortunately, they are not. Right now, the court lists their decision days on their website, which is on their calendar. Right now Thursdays seem to be the popular day, they have Thursdays through June listed. They most likely will add more decision days. On decision days, they start posting decisions at 10 a.m. Eastern Time, and you can follow along either on the Supreme Court’s website or many people go to SCOTUSblog, which also has a live blog that interprets some of what’s happening for people who are new to the court.

Rovner: And I will put both of those links in the show notes. Laurie Sobel, this has been so helpful. Thank you so much for joining us.

Sobel: Thank you for having me, Julie.

Rovner: OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our fill-in editor this week, Rebecca Adams. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X @jrovner. We will be back in your feed next week with the news. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Rebecca Adams
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).