The findings stemmed from a multi-state investigation of seven sepsis cases transmitted during blood transfusions. Samples collected between 2018 and 2022 led researchers to platelet collection products made by the company at a plant in Puerto Rico. Ultimately, the facility was the “most probable” source of the cases, according to the report in the CDC’s Emerging Infectious Diseases journal.

Bacterial contamination of platelet components commonly occurs during blood collection and typically involves a single identified species of bacteria. But “multiple episodes” of different bacteria contamination “with identical bacterial species in platelet components across different states is exceedingly rare, suggesting a possible common source of contamination,” the researchers wrote.

Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…

The Host

Emmarie Huetteman
KFF Health News

Emmarie Huetteman, associate Washington editor, previously spent more than a decade reporting on the federal government, most recently covering surprise medical bills, drug pricing reform, and other health policy debates in Washington and on the campaign trail.

The annual U.S. Census Bureau report this week revealed a drop in the uninsured rate last year as more working-age people obtained employer coverage. However, this year’s end of pandemic-era protections — which allowed many people to stay on Medicaid — is likely to have changed that picture quite a bit since. Meanwhile, reports show even many of those with insurance continue to struggle to afford their health care costs, and some providers are encouraging patients to take out loans that tack interest onto their medical debt.

Also, a mystery is unfolding in the federal budget: Why has recent Medicare spending per beneficiary leveled off? And the CDC recommends anyone who isat least 6 months old get the new covid booster.

This week’s panelists are Emmarie Huetteman of KFF Health News, Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, and Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times

@sangerkatz

Read Margot's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Census Bureau reported this week that the uninsured rate dropped to 10.8% in 2022, down from 11.6% in 2021, driven largely by a rise in employer-sponsored coverage. Since then, pandemic-era coverage protections have lapsed, though it remains to be seen exactly how many people could lose Medicaid coverage and stay uninsured.
• A concerning number of people who have insurance nonetheless struggle to afford their out-of-pocket costs. Medical debt is a common, escalating problem, exacerbated now as hospitals and other providers direct patients toward bank loans, credit cards, and other options that also saddle them with interest.
• Some state officials are worried that people who lose their Medicaid coverage could choose short-term health insurance plans with limited benefits — so-called junk plans — and find themselves owing more than they’d expect for future care.
• Meanwhile, a mystery is unfolding in the federal budget: After decades of warnings about runaway government spending, why has spending per Medicare beneficiary defied predictions and leveled off? At the same time, private insurance costs are increasing, with employer-sponsored plans expecting their largest increase in more than a decade.
• And the push for people to get the new covid booster is seeking to enshrine it in Americans’ annual preventive care regimen.

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

Emmarie Huetteman: KFF Health News’ “The Shrinking Number of Primary Care Physicians Is Reaching a Tipping Point,” by Elisabeth Rosenthal.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: MedPage Today’s “Rural Hospital Turns to GoFundMe to Stay Afloat,” by Kristina Fiore.

Joanne Kenen: ProPublica’s “How Columbia Ignored Women, Undermined Prosecutors and Protected a Predator for More Than 20 Years,” by Bianca Fortis and Laura Beil.

Margot Sanger-Katz: Congressional Budget Office’s “Raising the Excise Tax on Cigarettes: Effects on Health and the Federal Budget.”

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• U.S. Census Bureau’s “Health Insurance Coverage of U.S. Workers Increased in 2022,” by Rachel Lindstrom, Katherine Keisler-Starkey, and Lisa Bunch.
• The Commonwealth Fund’s “Can Older Adults with Employer Coverage Afford Their Health Care?” by Lauren A. Haynes and Sara R. Collins.
• KFF Health News’ “What One Lending Company’s Hospital Contracts Reveal About Financing Patient Debt,” by Noam N. Levey.
• The New York Times’ “A Huge Threat to the U.S. Budget Has Receded. And No One Is Sure Why,” by Margot Sanger-Katz, Alicia Parlapiano, and Josh Katz.
• The Wall Street Journal’s “Health-Insurance Costs Are Taking Biggest Jumps in Years,” by Anna Wilde Mathews.
• The New York Times’ “The N.Y.C. Neighborhood That’s Getting Even Thinner on Ozempic,” by Joseph Goldstein.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Underinsured Is the New Uninsured

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’

Episode Title: Underinsured Is the New Uninsured

Episode Number: 314

Published: Sept. 14, 2023

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

Emmarie Huetteman: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Emmarie Huetteman, a Washington editor for KFF Health News. I’m filling in for Julie [Rovner] this week, who’s on vacation. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Sept. 14, at 11 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. We’re joined today by video conference by Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Margot Sanger-Katz: Good morning, everybody.

Huetteman: Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi there.

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Huetteman: No interview this week, so let’s get right to the news. The percentage of working-age adults with health insurance went up last year, according to the annual Census report out this week. As a result, the uninsured rate dropped to 10.8% in 2022. But lower uninsured rates may be obscuring another problem: the number of people who are underinsured and facing high out-of-pocket costs. The Commonwealth Fund released a report last month on how difficult it is for many older adults with employer coverage to afford care. And recent reporting here at KFF Health News has probed how medical providers are steering patients toward bank loans and credit cards that saddled them with interest on top of their medical debt. So, the number of people without insurance is dropping. But that doesn’t mean that health care is becoming more affordable. So what does it mean to be underinsured? Are the policy conversations that focus on the uninsured rate missing the mark?

Sanger-Katz: So, two things I would say. One is that I even think that the Census report on what’s happening with the uninsured is obscuring a different issue, which is that there’s been this artificial increase in the number of people who are enrolled in Medicaid as a result of this pandemic policy. So the Congress said to the states, if you want to get extra money for your Medicaid program through the public health emergency, then you can’t kick anyone out of Medicaid regardless of whether they are no longer eligible for the program. And that provision expired this spring. And so this is one of the big stories in health policy that’s happening this year. States are trying to figure out how to reevaluate all of these people who have been in their Medicaid program for all these years and determine who’s eligible and who’s not eligible. And there’s been quite a lot of very good reporting on what’s going on. And I think there’s a combination of people who are losing their Medicaid coverage because they really genuinely are no longer eligible for Medicaid. And there also appears to be quite a large number of people who are losing their Medicaid coverage for administrative hiccup reasons — because there’s some paperwork error, or because they moved and they didn’t get a letter, or some other glitch in the system. And so when I looked at these numbers on the uninsured rate, in some ways what it told us is we gave a whole bunch of people insurance through these public programs during the pandemic and that depressed the uninsured rate. But we know right now that millions of people have lost insurance, even in the last few months, with more to come later this year. And so I’m very interested in the next installment of the Census report when we get back to more or less a normal Medicaid system, how many people will be without insurance. So that’s just one thing. And then just to get to your question, I think having insurance does not always mean that you can actually afford to pay for the health care that you need. We’ve seen over the last few decades a shift towards higher-deductible health care plans where people have to pay more money out-of-pocket before their insurance kicks in. We’ve also seen other kinds of cost sharing increase, where people have to pay higher copayments or a percentage of the cost of their care. And we’ve also seen, particularly in the Obamacare exchanges, but also in the employer market, that there’s a lot of insurance that doesn’t include any kind of out-of-network benefit. So it means, you know, if you can go to a provider who is covered by your insurance, your insurance will pay for it. But if you can’t find someone who’s covered by your insurance, you could still get hit with a big bill. The sort of surprise bills of old are banned. But, you know, the doctor can tell you in advance, and you can go and get all these medical services and then end up with some big bills. So whether or not just having an insurance card is really enough to ensure that people have access to health care remains an open question. And I think we have seen a lot of evidence over recent years that even people with insurance encounter a lot of financial difficulties when they get sick and often incur quite a lot of debt despite having insurance that protects them from the unlimited costs that they might face if they were uninsured.

Huetteman: Joanne.

Kenen: I would say two big things. The uninsurance rate, which we all think is going to go up because of this Medicaid unwinding, it’s worth stopping and thinking about. It’s what? 7.9[%]? Was that the number?

Huetteman: It was 10.8, was the uninsured rate last year.

Sanger-Katz: It depends if you look at any time of the year or all of the year.

Kenen: Back when the ACA [Affordable Care Act] was passed, it was closer to something like 18. So in terms of really changing the magnitude of the uninsurance problem in America, the work isn’t done. But this is a really significant change. Secondly, some aspects of care are better — or within reach because the ACA made so many preventive and primary care services free. That, too, is a gain. Obviously, through the medical debt, which KFF [Health News] now has done a great job — oh, and believe me, and other reporters, you’ve done an amazing job, story after story. You know, the “Bill of the Month” series that you edited, it’s … but they’re not isolated cases. It’s not like, oh, this person ran into this, you know, cost buzz saw. There’s insane pricing issues! And out-of-pocket and, you know, deductibles and extras, and incredibly hard to sort out even if you are a sophisticated, insured consumer of health care. Pricing is a mess. There have been changes to the health care market, in terms of consolidation of ownership, more private equity, bigger entities that just have created … added a new dimension to this problem. So have we made gains? We’ve made really important gains. Under the original ACA passed under the Obama administration and the changes, the access and generosity of subsidy changes that the Biden administration has made, even though they’re time-limited, they have to be renewed. But, you know, are people still being completely hit over the head and every other body part by really expensive costs? Yes. That is still a heartbreaking and really serious problem. I mean, I can just give one tiny incident where somebody … I needed a routine imaging thing in network. The doctor in that hospital wasn’t reachable. I had my primary care person send in the order because she’s not part of that health care system. She’s in network. The imaging center is in network. The doctor who told me I needed this test is in network. But because the actual order came from somebody not in their hospital and in … on the Maryland side of the line, instead of the D.C. side of the line, the hospital imaging center decided it was going to be out of network. And because she’s not ours and wanted to charge me an insane amount of money. I sorted it out. But it took me an insane amount of time and I shouldn’t have needed to do that.

Huetteman: Yeah, that’s absolutely true.

Kenen: I could have paid it, if I had to.

Huetteman: Absolutely. And as you noted, I do edit the “Bill of the Month” series. And we see that with all kinds of patients, even the most enterprising patients can’t get an answer to simple questions like, is this in network or out of network? Why did I get this bill? And it’s asking way too much of most people to try and fit that into the rest of the things that they do every day. You know, Margot brought up the Medicaid unwinding. Well, let’s speaking of insurance, let’s catch up there for a moment because there was a little news this week. We’re keeping an eye on those efforts to strip ineligible beneficiaries from state Medicaid rolls since the covid-19 public health emergency ended. Now, some state officials are worried that people who lose coverage could opt to replace it with short-term insurance plans. You might know them as “junk plans.” They often come with lower price tags, but these short-term plans do not have to follow the Affordable Care Act’s rules about what to cover. And people in the plans have found themselves owing for care they thought would be covered. The Trump administration expanded these plans, but this summer the Biden administration proposed limiting them once more. Remind us: What changes has Biden proposed for so-called junk plans and for people who lose their coverage during the Medicaid unwinding? What other options are available to them?

Sanger-Katz: So the Biden administration’s proposal was to basically return these short-term plans to actual short-term coverage, which is what they were designed to do. Part of what the Trump administration did is they kept this category of short-term plans. But then they said basically, well, you can just keep them for several years. And so they really became a more affordable but less comprehensive substitute for ACA-compliant insurance. So the Biden administration just wants to kind of squish ’em back down and say, OK, you can have them for like a couple of months, but you can’t keep them forever. I will say that a lot of people who are losing their Medicaid coverage as a result of the unwinding are probably pretty low on the income scale, just as a result of them having qualified for Medicaid in the first place. And so a very large share of them are eligible for free or close-to-free health plans on the Obamacare exchanges. Those enhanced subsidies that Joanne mentioned, they’re temporary, but they’re there for a few years. They really make a big difference for exactly this population that’s losing Medicaid coverage. If you’re just over the poverty line, you can often get a free plan that’s a — this is very technical, but — it’s a silver plan with these cost-sharing wraparound benefits. And so you end up with a plan where you really don’t have to pay very much at the point of care. You don’t have to pay anything in a premium. So I think, in general, that is the most obvious answer for most of these people who are losing their Medicaid. But I think it is a challenge to navigate that system, for states to help steer people towards these other options, and for them to get enrolled in a timely way. Because, of course, Obamacare markets are not open all the time. They’re open during an open enrollment period or for a short period after you lose another type of coverage.

Huetteman: Absolutely. And a lot of these states actually have efforts that are normally focused on open enrollment right now. And some officials say that they are redirecting those efforts toward helping these folks who are losing their Medicaid coverage to find the options, like those exchange plans that are available for zero-dollar premiums or low premiums under the subsidies available.

Kenen: I have seen some online ads from HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services], saying, you know, “Did you lose your Medicaid?” and it’s state-specific — “Did you lose your Medicaid in Virginia?” I don’t live in Virginia, so I’m not sure why I’m getting it. My phone is telling me the Virginia one. But there is an HHS [ad], and it is saying if you lost your Medicaid, go to healthcare.gov, we can help. You know, we may be able to help you. So they are outreaching, although I’m afraid that somebody who actually lost it in Virginia might be getting an ad about Nebraska or whatever. I live close to Virginia. It’s close enough. But there is some effort to reach people in a plain English, accessible pop-up on your phone, or your web browser, kind of way. So I have seen that over the last few weeks because the special enrollment period, I mean, most people who are no longer eligible for Medicaid are eligible for something, and something other than a junk plan. Some of them have insurance at work now because the job market is better than it was in 2020, obviously. Many people will be eligible for these highly subsidized plans that Margot just talked about. Very few people should be left out in the cold, but there’s a lot of work to be done to make those connections.

Huetteman: Absolutely. Absolutely. And going back to the Census report for a second, it had noted that a big part of the increase in coverage came from employer-sponsored coverage among working-age adults, although we have, of course, seen those reports that say … and then they try to afford their health care costs. And it’s really difficult for a lot of them, even when they have that insurance, as we talked about. All right. So let’s move on. The New York Times is reporting a mystery unfolding in the federal budget. And I’d like to call it “The Case of Flat Medicare Spending.” After decades of warnings about runaway government spending, a recent Times analysis shows that spending per Medicare beneficiary has actually leveled off over more than a decade. Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal reports that private health insurance costs are climbing. Next year, employer-sponsored plans could see their biggest cost increase in more than a decade, and that trend could continue. So what’s going on with insurance costs? Let’s start with Medicare. Margot, you were the lead reporter on the Times analysis. What explains this Medicare spending slowdown?

Sanger-Katz: So part of the reason why I have found it to be a somewhat enjoyable story is that I think there is a bit of a mystery. I talked to lots of people who have studied and written about this phenomenon over the years, and I think there was no one I talked to who said “I 100% understand what is going on here. And I can tell you, here’s the thing.” But there are a bunch of factors that I think a lot of people think are contributing, and I’ll just run through them quickly. One of them is Medicare is getting a little younger. The baby boomers are retiring generally, like, 65-year-olds are a little cheaper to take care of than 85-year-olds. So as the age mix gets younger, we’ve seen the average cost of taking care of someone in Medicare get a little smaller. That’s like the easiest one. I think another one is that Obamacare and other legislative changes that Congress has passed during this period have just mechanically reduced the amount of money that Medicare is spending. So the two most obvious ways are, in the Affordable Care Act, Congress took money away from Medicare Advantage plans, paid them a smaller premium for taking care of patients, and they also reduced the amount that hospitals get every year, as what’s called a productivity adjustment. So hospitals get a little raise on their pay rates every year. And the legislation tamped that down. There was also, some listeners may remember, the budget sequester that happened in 2011, 2012, where there was kind of a haircut that Medicare had to take across the board. So there have been these kind of legislative changes. They explain like a little bit of what is going on. And now I think the rest of it really has to do with the health care system itself. And part of that seems to be that this has been a period of relatively limited technological improvement. So, you know, for years medicine just kept getting better and better. We had these miracle cures, we had these amazing surgeries. We, you know, especially like in the area of cardiovascular disease, just enormous advances in recent decades where, you know, first bypass surgery and then stents and then, you know, drugs that could prevent heart attacks. And so I think, you know, health care spending kept climbing and climbing in part because there was better stuff to spend it on. It was expensive, but it really improved people’s health. And in recent years, there’s just been a little less of that. There have clearly been medical advances, particularly in the pharmaceutical space. You know, we have better treatments for cancer, for certain types of cancers, than we had before and for other important diseases. But these expensive innovations tend to affect smaller percentages of people. We haven’t had a lot of really big blockbusters that everyone in Medicare is taking. And so that seems to explain some of the slowdown. And then I think the last piece is, like, kind of the piece that’s the hardest to really explain or pin down, but it seems like there’s just something different that doctors and hospitals are doing. They’re getting more efficient. They’re not always buying the latest and greatest thing, if there’s not evidence to support it. They’re reducing their medical errors. And, you know, I think Obamacare probably gets a share of the credit here. It really created a lot of changes in the way we pay for medical care and in the Medicare program itself. And it created this innovation center that’s supposed to test out all of these different things. But I think also over the same period, we’ve seen the private sector make many of the same moves. You know, private insurers have gotten a little bit more stingy about covering new technologies without evidence. They’ve tended to pay physicians and hospitals in bundles, or paying them incentives for quality, not paying them for certain types of care that involve errors. And so a lot of people I talked to said that they think the medical system is reacting to all of the payers crunching down on them. And so they’re just not being quite as aggressive and they’re trying to think more about value, which I feel like is like kind of a lame buzzword that often doesn’t mean anything. But I think, you know, it’s a way of thinking about this change. And, you know, that’s the kind of thing, if culturally that endures, you know, could continue into the future. Whereas some of these other factors, like the demographics, the lack of technological development, those — the Obamacare, which was kind of a one-time legislative change, you know — those things may not continue into the future, which is why the fact that we’ve had 15 years of flat Medicare spending is no guarantee that Medicare spending won’t spike again in the future. And I think you were right to point to what’s happening in the private sector, because private sector insurance premiums also have been like a little bit on the flat side through this period. And I think there is potential for them to take off again.

Huetteman: Absolutely. And that’s what The Wall Street Journal’s reporting had just said, that the health care costs for coming into next year are climbing. Let’s talk about that for a minute. Why are private insurance costs rising as Medicare spending levels off? One of the things that I noticed is we talked about technological innovation. Pharmaceutical innovation seems to be one of the things that’s contributing to rising private health insurance costs and elsewhere, in particular, those weight-loss drugs I know.

Kenen: And the Alzheimer’s drugs.

Huetteman: And the Alzheimer’s drugs.

Kenen: Eventually they’ll become more widely available. Sarah knows way more than the rest of us.

Karlin-Smith: The Alzheimer’s drugs will probably be less of an issue for the private health insurance population. But certainly weight-loss drugs are something that private insurers are worried about what percentage of the population they will cover with these drugs. And I think insurance companies, they have to balance that … difficult balance between what percentage of the drug cost rate you put on patients and what do you build into premiums. And sometimes there’s only so much flexibility they can have there. So I think that’s a big reason for what you’re seeing here.

Huetteman: Yeah, absolutely.

Sanger-Katz: I think the weight-loss drugs are interesting because they kind of are, potentially, an example of the kind of technology that is both expensive and good for public health, right? So, you know, when we have all these improvements in cardiac disease, like, that was great. People didn’t have heart attacks. They didn’t have disability in old age. They lived longer lives. That was great. But it cost a ton of money. And I think because we have been going through this period in which costs have been kind of level, and there hasn’t been a lot of expensive breakthrough technology, we haven’t had to weigh those things against each other in the way that we might now, where we might have to say, OK, well, like, this is really expensive, but also, like, it has a lot of benefits. and how do we decide what the right cost benefit is as a society, as an employer, as a public insurance program? And I think we’re going to see a lot of payers and economists and other analysts really thinking hard about these trade-offs in a way that they, I think, haven’t really been forced to do very much in the last few years with … I mean, maybe with the possible exception of those breakthrough therapies for hepatitis C —also expensive, huge public health benefit. And it was a struggle for our system to figure out what to do with them.

Kenen: But, like the statins, which, you know, revolutionized heart health, these drugs that are useful for both diabetes and … weight loss, the demand of people who just want them because they want to lose those 20 pounds, insurers are not — Medicare at least is not — covering it. Insurers have some rules about “Are you pre-diabetic?” and etc., etc., but they cost a lot of money and a lot of people want to take them. So I think they’re clearly great for diabetes. They clearly are a whole new class of drugs that are going to do good things. We still don’t. … There’s still questions about who should be using them for the rest of their lives, for weight control, etc., etc. Yes, there are going to be benefits, but this era of … what is the typical cost per month, Sarah?

Karlin-Smith: The list price of these drugs are thousands of dollars per month. But I think to your point, Joanne, though, the trouble for insurance companies who are figuring out how to cover this is they’re starting to get more research that there are these actual health benefits outside of just weight loss. And once you start to say, you know, that these drugs help prevent heart attacks and have hard evidence of that, it becomes harder for them to deny coverage. I think to Margot’s point of the long-term benefits, you might see to health because of it, we get back to another issue in the U.S. health system is, which is these private health insurance companies might essentially basically be footing the bill for benefits that Medicare is going to reap, not necessarily the insurance companies, right? So if somebody, you know, doesn’t have a heart attack at 50 because they’re on these drugs, that’s great. But if the savings is actually going to Medicare down the line, you know, the private health insurer doesn’t see the benefit of that. And that’s where some of the tensions you get into it in terms of, like, how we cover these products and who we give them to.

Kenen: Because that trade-off: quality of life and longevity of life. That’s what health is about, right? I mean, is having people live healthy, good lives, and it costs money. But there’s this issue of the drug prices have gotten very high, and hepatitis C is a perfect example. I mean, now it’s like we were freaked out about $84,000 in, you know, 2013, 2015, whenever that came out. You know, now that looks quaint. But that price was still so high that we didn’t get it to people. We could have wiped out hepatitis C or come damn close to wiping out hepatitis C, but the price the drug was an obstacle. So we’re still, I mean, there’s a big White House initiative now, you know, there’s creative … the Louisiana model of, you know, what they call the Netflix model where, you know, you have a contract to buy a whole ton of it for less per unit. I mean, these are still questions. Yes. I mean, we all know that certain drugs make a big difference. But if they’re priced at a point where people who need them the most can’t get them, then you’re not seeing what they’re really invented for.

Sanger-Katz: Oh, I was just going to say, I think that part of what interests me about this particular class of drugs and the debates that we are likely to have about them, and there are, you know, the way that they’re going to be adopted into our health care system is that setting aside the diabetes indication for a moment, the idea of drugs that effectively treat obesity, I think obesity is a very stigmatized disease in our country. And in fact, Medicare has statutory language that says that Medicare cannot cover drugs for weight loss. So it would actually require an act of Congress for these drugs to be approved for that purpose in Medicare. And in Medicaid, in general, states are required to cover FDA-approved drugs. You know, they can put some limitations, but they’re supposed to cover them. Again, there is a special statutory exclusion for weight-loss drugs where the states really have discretion they don’t have for a cancer drug, for a drug for diabetes, a drug for other common diseases. And so I do think that, you know, a lot of this debate is colored by people’s prejudices against people who have obesity, and the way that our medical care system has thought about them and the treatment for their disease over time. And I’m curious about that aspect of it as well. I mean, of course, I think that Joanne is absolutely right that we do not know long term how these drugs are going to help people with obesity, whether it’s really going to reduce the burden of disease down the road for them, whether it’s going to have other health consequences in an enduring way. You know, I think there are unknowns, but I think if you take the most optimistic possible look at these drugs, that there’s quite a lot of evidence that they really do improve people’s health. And if we treat these drugs differently than we would an expensive drug for an infectious disease like hepatitis C or different from an expensive drug for cancer diseases that are less stigmatized, I think that would maybe be a little bit sad.

Karlin-Smith: I mean certainly the reason why the initial restrictions in Medicare and other programs are baked in goes back to stigma to some degree. But also, I mean … because they were thinking of these as weight-loss drugs and sort of vanity treatments people would only be using for vanity. And at that time, the drugs that were available did not work quite as well and had a lot of dangers and certainly did not show any of these other health benefits that we’re starting to see with this new class of medicine. So I think that would be the hope that, you know, as the science and the products shift, as well as our medical understanding around what causes obesity, what doesn’t cause obesity, how much of it is … right, again, just as medical as any other condition and not all about a person’s behavior. And I think we will see that the benefits of some of these drugs for certain people, in particular, are probably a lot bigger than maybe the benefits of certain cancer treatments that we pay a lot more money for. The challenge is going to be the amount of people and the amount of time they are going to be on these drugs, right? You know, if you’re talking about these hepatitis C drugs, I think one reason they didn’t shock the budgets in the way people were expecting, besides the fact that, unfortunately, we didn’t get them to everybody, is they’re actually really short-term cures, right? I think it’s like 10 weeks or something.

Kenen: Some are like eight.

Karlin-Smith: Right. Ballpark. And with the obesity drugs, what we know … these new drugs so far is that you seem like you have to consistently take them. Once you get off them, the weight comes back. And then the assumption would be you lose all those health benefits. So we’re talking about a high-cost drug on a chronic basis that our system can’t afford.

Kenen: Margot, do you know? I mean, my guess is that the ban on covering weight-loss drugs was written into MMA [the Medicare Modernization Act] in 2003. That’s my guess. I don’t know if anyone …

Sanger-Katz: That’s right. Yeah. It was part of the creation of the drug benefit program.

Kenen: So I think that you’re totally right that it’s what both of you said. You know, we tended to say it was someone’s fault, like they didn’t have enough willpower. Or they, you know, didn’t do what they were supposed to do. And there was stigma and we thought about it diffrently. I also think the science, you know, Sarah alluded to this, I think the science of obesity has really changed, that we didn’t talk about it — even though obesity experts — really didn’t talk about it as a disease a generation ago. We thought of it as maybe as a risk factor, but we didn’t think of it as a disease in and of itself. And we now do know that. So I think that the coverage issues are going to change. But what are the criteria? How fast do they change, for who do they change? Do you really want to put somebody on a drug because they want to lose 10 or 15 punds, which is … versus someone who really has struggled with weight and has physical risk factors because of it, including, you know, heart disease, diabetes, all these other things we know about. I mean, I just think we don’t know. I mean, there was a piece in the Times about the Upper East Side of Manhattan is like this beehive of people taking these weight loss drugs because they can afford it, but they’re also thinner than the rest of the population. So it becomes, you know, a luxury good or another disparity.

Sanger-Katz: If insurance won’t cover these drugs ,of course, rich people are going to take them more than people of limited means. Right? Like, I think you can only really test the hypothesis of, like, who are these drugs meant to reach once … if you have coverage for them, right? I thought that story was very good, and it did reveal something that’s happening. But I also thought … it felt like it was focusing on the idea that that rich people were taking these drugs just for vanity. And I think …

Kenen: Some of them, not all clearly some of them.

Sanger-Katz: Some of them are, of course. But I thought the thing that was less explored in that story is all of the people in poor neighborhoods of New York who were not accessing those drugs. Was it because they couldn’t find any way to get them?

Kenen: Right, and some of them were pre-diabetic. Some of them. I mean, the other thing is people who are overweight are often pre-diabetic. And that is an indication. I mean, you can … it’s in flux. It’s going to change over the coming months, you know, but what a cost and how those benefits paid off and who’s going to end up paying and where the cost shifting is going to come, because there is always cost shifting. We just don’t know yet. But these drugs are here to stay. And there are questions. There are a lot of questions. The mounting evidence is that they are going to be a benefit. It’s just, you know, what do we pay for them? Who gets them? How long do the people stay on them, etc., etc., etc.

Sanger-Katz: And just to come back to Emmarie’s first question, like, what is this going to mean for our insurance premiums, right? With something like 40% of adults in the United States have obesity. If we start to see more and more people taking these drugs to treat this disease, all of us are going to have to pay for that in some way. And, you know, that affects overall health care.

Huetteman: Absolutely. Well, let’s move to the week’s big covid news now. This week, the FDA approved a new booster, which comes amid an uptick in cases and concerns about a surge this fall and winter. Before the CDC made its recommendations, though, there was debate over whether the booster should be recommended only for a couple of higher-risk groups. So who does the CDC say should get the shot? And what’s the response been like from the health care community so far?

Karlin-Smith: So the CDC decided their advisers and the CDC themselves to recommend the shot for everybody. That really didn’t surprise me because I think that was the direction FDA wanted to go as well. I think the majority came down to the fact that a broad recommendation would be the best for health equity and actually ensuring the people we really want to get the shots get them. If you start siphoning off the population and so forth, it actually might prevent people that really should get the shots from getting it. I think the booster debate has actually been really similar since we started approving covid boosters, which is that the companies that provided for the boosters is not the same as the original data they presented to get the vaccines approved. So we don’t have as much understanding with the type of rigorous research some people would like to know: OK, what is the added benefit you’re getting from these boosters? We know they provide some added benefit of protection for infection, but that’s very short-lived. And then I think there’s … people have differences of opinions of how much added protection it’s giving you from severe disease and death. And so there are factions who argue, and I think Paul Offit has become one of the most known and vocal cheerleaders of this mindset, which is that, well, actually, if you’ve already had, you know, two, three, four shots, you’ve already had covid, you’re probably really well protected against the worst outcomes. And these shots are not really going to do that much to protect you from an infection. “So why take them anymore?” — essentially, is sort of his mindset. And there are people that disagree. I think the thing that probably might help change mindsets is, at least in this country, probably not going to happen, which is, you know, more rigorous outcomes research here. But I think the sentiment of the CDC and its advice has been, well, these shots are extremely low risk and there’s at least some added benefit. So for most people, the risk-benefit balance is: Get it. And if you make it kind of simple, if you say, OK, you know, everybody, it’s time to get your next covid booster, the feeling is that will get the most people in the U.S. to go out and do it. Unfortunately, most covid booster recommendations have been fairly broad — the last, at least, and that hasn’t translated. But we’ll see. This is actually the first time that everyone, except for babies under 6 months — because you can’t start your covid vaccination until then —everybody is really included in the booster recommendation at the same time. In previous rounds, particularly for younger kids, it was more staggered. So this will be the simplest recommendation we have yet.

Kenen: And that’s part of the public health strategy, is to not talk about it so much as boosters, just as an annual shot. The way you get an annual flu shot. I mean, most people don’t get them. But the idea is that to normalize this, you know, you get an annual flu shot, you get an annual covid shot, for certain age groups you get annual RSV now that’ll be available. But that’s not for everybody. I mean, I think they really want to make this simple. OK, it’s fall, get your covid shot. We don’t think uptake is going to be real high. It hasn’t been for boosters. But in terms of trying to change, this is just, you know, this is one of those things to add to your to-do list this year and to, sort of, less “pandemicize” it. I don’t think that’s a word. But, you know, everyone will forgive me. And more just, you know, OK, you know, this is one of the things you got to do in the fall. Maybe “pandemicize” is a word or maybe it should be.

Sanger-Katz: I like it. Maybe we should use it.

Huetteman: Pandemicize your care.

Kenen: Right. You know, it’s part of your preventive care and just … I mean, good luck trying to de-politicize it. But that’s part of it. I mean, the CDC director, Mandy Cohen, she wrote an op-ed this week and it was all about, you know, I’m a doctor, I’m the CDC director, and I’m a mom. And, you know, my family is going to get it. You know, Ashish Jha was tweeting about how he’s going to get it, his elderly parents are going to get theirs as soon as possible, etc., etc. So it’s not going to be … the hard-core people who really don’t want these shots and haven’t taken the shots and believe the shots cause more harm than good, etc. It won’t change a lot of their minds. But there are a lot of people who are uncertain in the middle and their minds can be changed. And they have … they were changed in the initial round of shots. So that’s who the messaging is … it’s sort of a reminder to people who take the shots and an invitation to those who … haven’t been getting boosted that just start doing this every year.

Karlin-Smith: And it is important to emphasize when the boosters have been tweaked and, you know, updated to try to match as close as they possibly can the current version of the virus. The virus has evolved and shifted a lot over time to the point where even these boosters, you know, they can’t quite keep up with the virus. But the idea is that we’re helping broaden everybody’s protection by keeping it as up to date with the science. So I think that’s an important element of that, that people don’t appreciate. They’re not just giving you the exact same shot over and over again. They’re trying to, like we do with the flu vaccine every year, be as close to what is circulating as possible.

Kenen: And there’s a new, new, new, new variant that looked very — do I have enough “news” in there? — that looked, and I don’t remember the initials; I can’t keep track — that is really quite different than the other ones. And there was a lot of initial concern that this vaccine would not work or that we wouldn’t … that our protection would not work against that. The follow-up research is much more reassuring that the fall shot will work against that. But that one really is different, and it’s got a lot of mutations. And, you know, we don’t know yet how … some of these things come and go pretty quickly. I mean, who remembers Mu? That one people were very worried about and it seemed quite dangerous and luckily it didn’t take root. You know, people don’t even know there was a Greek letter called Mu. M-u, not m-o-o, in case anyone’s wondering. If relatives ask me if they should take it, the two things that struck me in reading about it are, yes, it works against this new variant, and we’re not really sure what are the new, new, new, new, new, new, new, new ones. And also, I mean, there’s some research that it does protect against long covid. And I think that’s a big selling point for people. I think there are people who still, with reason, worry about long covid, and that vaccination does provide some protection against that as well.

Huetteman: That’s a great point. I mean, anecdotally, you talk to your friends who’ve had covid, there’s going to be at least a few of them who say they haven’t quite felt like themselves ever since they had covid. And I think that is one of the things that really motivates people who aren’t in those higher-risk categories, to think about whether they need the booster or not.

Kenen: Yeah, and also the myocarditis … Sarah, correct …  you follow this more closely than I do, so correct me if I’m wrong here, but I believe that they’re finding that the myocarditis risk in the newer formulations of the vaccine has dropped, that it is not as much of a concern for young men. And covid itself can cause myocarditis in some individuals. Did I get that right?

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I think that that’s right. The general sense has been that the risk was more with the initial shots, and it seems to have gone down. I think that there are people that still worry about particular age groups of, like, young men in certain age groups, that maybe for them the benefit-risk balance with the myocarditis risk is, you know, might be a little bit different. And that’s where a lot of the pushback comes through. But right, like you said, there is a fairly high … there’s myocarditis risk from covid itself that needs to be balanced.

Huetteman: Well, OK. That’s this week’s news. Now we’ll take a quick break and then we’ll come back with extra credits.

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

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

Karlin-Smith: Sure. So I looked at a MedPage Today page by Kristina Fiore that talks about a GoFundMe campaign that was started by a small rural hospital in Pennsylvania. They’re trying to raise $1.5 million to basically keep the hospital open. It’s the only hospital in the county. It’s a small critical-access hospital. And I think people who follow health care and health policy in the U.S. are probably used to seeing GoFundMe campaigns for individual health care, as we talked about earlier in the episode, right? The unaffordability that can happen even for people with good insurance if you … depending on your medical situation. But this situation, I thought, was really unique, a whole hospital, which is, I guess, community-owned, and they’re essentially turning to the internet to try and stay open. And it touches on some of the payment differences in how rural hospitals make their money, or the payment rates they get reimbursed versus more urban hospitals. Other issues it brings up is just, you know, how do you keep an institution open that’s serving a relatively small population of people? So, you don’t necessarily want to have people going to the hospital, but they’re basically arguing that if we don’t get this amount of people in our ER per day, we can’t stay open. But then that means you don’t have an ER for anybody. And I think it’s just worth looking at, looking at the facts they put on their GoFundMe page, just thinking about, you know, what this says about various policies in the U.S. health system. And, unfortunately for them right now, they’re well short of their $1.5 billion goal.

Huetteman: Yeah, it’s amazing to see this get translated into an institution-saving effort as opposed to an individual-saving effort. Joanne, you want to go next?

Kenen: Sure. This is a story that it was by Bianca Fortis from ProPublica, Laura Biel, who wrote this for ProPublica and New York Magazine, and also Laura, who’s a friend of mine, also has a fabulous podcast called “Exposed.” And in this case, I want to mention the photographer, too, because if you click on this, it’s quite extraordinary visuals. Hannah Whitaker from New York Magazine. And the title is “How Columbia …” — and this is the university, not the country — “How Columbia Ignored Women, Undermined Prosecutors and Protected a Predator for More Than 20 Years.” This is an OB-GYN who was abusing his patients, and it’s hundreds, hundreds that have been identified and known. We knew about him because some of the patients had come forward, including Evelyn Wang, who was Andrew Wang — is Andrew Wang’s wife, the presidential candidate last cycle. But we didn’t know this. You know, first of all, it’s even bigger than we knew three years ago, and he has been prosecuted — finally. But it took 20 years. And this is really more of a story about how the medical system, the health care system, had warning after warning after warning after warning, and they didn’t do anything. And also, many of the people who tried to give the warnings, some of the employees, including the medical assistants, and the nurses, and the receptionists, knew what was going on. And they thought that they, as lower-level women going up against a white male doctor, wouldn’t be believed. And they didn’t even try. They just felt like he’s the guy, he’s the doctor. I’m the, you know, I’m the nurse. They won’t listen to me. So that was another subtheme that came out to me. I had known vaguely about this. It’s really long, and I read every word. It’s a really horrifying saga of an abdication of responsibility to women who were really harmed. Vulnerable women who were really harmed.

Huetteman: Yeah, it’s a really troubling story, but it’s an important piece of journalism. And I advise that people give it a little time. Margot, would you like to go next?

Sanger-Katz: Yeah. So this is a very nerdy, deep cut. I wanted to talk about a CBO [Congressional Budget Office] report from 2012 called “Raising the Excise Tax on Cigarettes: Effects on Health and the Federal Budget.” So when I published this article about how Medicare spending has sort of flattened out, we got so many reader comments and emails and tweets and several people asked, “Could it be that the decline in smoking has led to lower costs for Medicare?” And that caused me to do some reporting and to read this paper. And I think the finding, the sort of counterintuitive finding that I will tell you about in a minute, from the CBO really speaks to some of the discussion that we were having earlier about these obesity drugs, which is that there are many beneficial preventive therapies in health care that are great for people’s health. They make them healthier, they have happier lives, they live longer, they have less burden of disease, but they are not cost-effective in the sense that they reduce our total spending on health care. And the simplest way to think about this is that if everyone in America just died at age 65, Medicare’s budget would look amazing. You know, it would be great. We would save so much money if we could just kill everyone at age 65. But that’s not what the goal of Medicare is. It’s not to save the maximum amount of money. It’s to get a good value, to improve people’s life and health as much as possible for a good value. And so this report was looking at what would happen if we had a really effective policy to reduce smoking in the United States. They looked at a tax that they estimated would reduce the smoking rate by a further 5 percentage points. And what they found is that it would cost the government more money, that people would be healthier, they would live longer lives, more of them would spend more years in Medicare, and they would end up having some other health problem that was expensive that they weren’t going to have before. And also they would collect a lot of Social Security payments because they would live a lot longer. And so I found it so stunning because the economics of it, I think, make a lot of sense. And when you think about it, it’s true. But it does go to show how, I think, that sometimes when we, and when politicians, talk about preventive health care, they always talk about it like it’s a win-win. You know, this is going to be great for people and it’s going to save money. And I think that in health care, many times things that are good and beneficial improve health and they cost money and we have to decide if it’s worth it.

Huetteman: Absolutely. That’s great. Thank you. My extra credit this week comes from KFF Health News. Dr. Elisabeth Rosenthal, our senior contributing editor, writes: “The Shrinking Number of Primary Care Physicians Is Reaching a Tipping Point.” And we’ve seen some great coverage lately on the disappearance of the primary care doctor in this country. And Dr. Rosenthal also offers some solutions to this yawning gap in our health care system. She reports that the percent of U.S. doctors that have moved into primary care is now at about 25%, which is much lower than in previous decades. And one point she makes, in particular, about a problem that’s leading to this is the payment structure that we have in our country favors surgeries and procedures, of course, not diagnostic tests, preventative care, when it comes to reimbursing doctors. And of course, this lack of primary care doctors has implications for our overall health, both individually and as a country. So I recommend that you give that article a little bit of your time this week.

All right. That’s our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our amazing engineer, Francis Ying. And as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m @emmarieDC. Sarah?

Karlin-Smith: I’m @SarahKarlin.

Huetteman: Joanne?

Kenen: @JoanneKenen on Twitter, @joannekenen1 on Threads.

Huetteman: And Margot.

Sanger-Katz: @sangerkatz in all the places.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Terry Byrne
Copy chief

Gabe Brison-Trezise
Deputy copy chief

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).

Tras una cirugía de emergencia para extirpar el tumor, junto con sus ovarios, útero, trompas de Falopio y apéndice, Hughes contó que vio una publicación en Instagram en la que una mujer con cáncer uterino relacionaba su condición con alisadores químicos para el cabello.

“Casi me desmayo”, dijo desde su casa en Smyrna, Georgia.

Cuando tenía unos 4 años, su madre comenzó a aplicarle un alisador químico, o “relajante”, en el cabello cada seis u ocho semanas. “Quemaba y olía terrible”, recordó Hughes. “Pero era parte de nuestra rutina para ‘lidiar con mi cabello'”.

La rutina continuó hasta que fue a la universidad y conoció a otras mujeres negras que llevaban el cabello de forma natural. Pronto, Hughes dejó de usar alisadores.

Las presiones sociales y económicas han llevado durante mucho tiempo a las niñas y mujeres negras a alisar su cabello para cumplir con los estándares de belleza eurocéntricos. Pero los alisadores químicos tienen un olor desagradable, son costosos y a veces causan quemaduras dolorosas en el cuero cabelludo. Y ahora hay cada vez más evidencia de que podrían ser un riesgo para la salud.

Los alisadores pueden contener carcinógenos, como agentes liberadores de formaldehído, ftalatos y otros compuestos que alteran el sistema endócrino, según estudios de los Institutos Nacionales de Salud. Estas sustancias químicas pueden imitar las hormonas del cuerpo y se han vinculado con cánceres de seno, útero y ovario, muestran investigaciones.

Investigadores y médicos especializados en cáncer dicen que la aplicación frecuente y de por vida de alisadores químicos en el cabello y el cuero cabelludo de mujeres afroamericanas podría explicar por qué los cánceres relacionados con hormonas afectan de manera desproporcionada a mujeres negras en comparación con mujeres blancas.

“Lo que hay en estos productos es perjudicial”, dijo Tamarra James-Todd, profesora de epidemiología en la Escuela de Salud Pública T.H. Chan de Harvard, quien ha estudiado productos alisadores por los últimos 20 años.

James-Todd cree que los fabricantes, legisladores y médicos deberían advertir a los consumidores que los alisadores podrían causar cáncer y otros problemas de salud. Pero los reguladores han sido lentos en actuar, los médicos se han mostrado reacios a tomar la causa, y el racismo continúa dictando los estándares de moda que dificultan que las mujeres dejen los alisadores, productos tan adictivos que son conocidos como “crema adictiva” (“creamy crack”).

Michelle Obama alisó su cabello cuando Barack era presidente porque creía que los estadounidenses “no estaban preparados” para verla con trenzas, dijo la ex primera dama después de dejar la Casa Blanca. El ejército de los Estados Unidos todavía prohibía estilos populares de cabello negro, como rastas y trenzas, mientras el primer presidente negro del país estaba en el cargo.

En 2019, California se convirtió en el primer estado de casi 20 en prohibir la discriminación basada en el cabello. El año pasado, la Cámara de Representantes de los Estados Unidos aprobó una legislación similar, conocida como la Ley CROWN (Creating a Respectful and Open World of Natural Hair). Sin embargo, el proyecto de ley fracasó en el Senado.

La necesidad de legislación destaca los desafíos que enfrentan las niñas y mujeres negras en la escuela y en el lugar de trabajo.

“Tienes que elegir tus batallas”, dijo Ryland Gore, cirujana oncológica con sede en Atlanta. Gore informa a sus pacientes con cáncer de mama sobre el mayor riesgo de cáncer debido a los alisadores. A pesar de su conocimiento, Gore continúa usando alisadores químicos en su propio cabello, como lo ha hecho desde que tenía unos 7 años.

“Tu cabello cuenta una historia”, dijo.

En las conversaciones con sus pacientes, Gore a veces también habla sobre cómo las mujeres afroamericanas solían tejer mensajes en sus trenzas sobre la ruta a seguir en el Underground Railroad mientras buscaban la libertad de la esclavitud.

“Es simplemente una discusión profunda”, que abarca cultura, historia e investigación sobre las prácticas de estilo de peinados actuales, dijo. “Los datos están ahí fuera. Por lo tanto, se les debe advertir a los pacientes, y luego pueden tomar una decisión”.

La primera pista de una conexión entre los productos para el cabello y problemas de salud surgió en la década de 1990. Los médicos comenzaron a ver signos de madurez sexual en bebés y niñas negras que desarrollaban senos y vello púbico después de usar champús que contenían estrógeno o extracto placentario. Cuando las niñas dejaban de usar el champú, el desarrollo del cabello y los senos retrocedían.

Desde entonces, James-Todd y otros investigadores han vinculado compuestos químicos en productos para el cabello con una variedad de problemas de salud más prevalentes entre las mujeres negras, desde la pubertad temprana hasta el parto prematuro, la obesidad y la diabetes.

En los últimos años, los investigadores se han enfocado en una posible conexión entre los alisadores químicos y los cánceres relacionados con hormonas, como el que desarrolló Hughes, que tienden a ser más agresivos y mortales en las mujeres negras.

Un estudio de 2017 encontró que las mujeres blancas que usaban alisadores químicos tenían casi el doble de probabilidades de desarrollar cáncer de seno que aquellas que no los usaban. Debido a que la gran mayoría de las participantes negras del estudio usaban alisadores, los investigadores no pudieron probar efectivamente la asociación en mujeres negras, según afirmó la autora principal, Adana Llanos, profesora asociada de epidemiología en la Escuela de Salud Pública Mailman de la Universidad de Columbia.

Los investigadores lo probaron en 2020.

El llamado Sister Study (Estudio de las Hermanas), una importante investigación del Instituto Nacional de Ciencias de la Salud Ambiental sobre las causas del cáncer de mama y enfermedades relacionadas, hizo el seguimiento de 50,000 mujeres estadounidenses cuyas hermanas habían sido diagnosticadas con cáncer de mama y que estaban libres de cáncer cuando se inscribieron. Independientemente de la raza, las mujeres que informaron haber usado alisadores en el año anterior tenían un 18% más de probabilidades de ser diagnosticadas con cáncer de mama. Aquellas que usaron alisadores al menos cada cinco a ocho semanas tenían un 31% más de riesgo de ese cáncer.

Casi el 75% de las hermanas negras usaron alisadores en el año anterior, en comparación con solo el 3% de las hermanas blancas no hispanas. Tres cuartas partes de las mujeres negras también informaron haber usado alisadores cuando eran adolescentes, y el uso frecuente de alisadores químicos durante la adolescencia aumentó el riesgo de cáncer de mama premenopáusico.

En 2021, un análisis de los datos del Sister Study mostró que las hermanas que usaban frecuentemente alisadores o productos para el alisado tenían el doble de riesgo de cáncer de ovario. Otro análisis, en 2022, encontró que el uso frecuente aumentaba en más del doble el riesgo de cáncer de útero.

Después de que los investigadores descubrieron la relación con el cáncer de útero, algunos pidieron cambios en las políticas y otras medidas para reducir la exposición a los alisadores.

“Es hora de intervenir”, escribió Llanos y sus colegas en un editorial que acompañó el análisis del cáncer de útero. Aunque reconocen la necesidad de más investigaciones, lanzaron un “llamado a la acción”.

Nadie puede afirmar que el uso de alisadores permanentes causará cáncer, dijo Llanos en una entrevista. “Así no funciona el cáncer”, dijo, señalando que algunos fumadores nunca desarrollan cáncer de pulmón, a pesar de que el tabaquismo es un factor de riesgo conocido.

El corpus de investigación sobre los alisadores para el cabello y el cáncer es más limitado, dijo Llanos, quien dejó de usar alisadores químicos hace 15 años. Pero preguntó retóricamente: “¿Necesitamos investigar durante otros 50 años para saber que los alisadores químicos son perjudiciales?”.

Charlotte Gamble, ginecóloga oncológica cuya práctica en Washington, D.C., incluye a mujeres negras con cáncer de útero y ovario, dijo que ella y sus colegas ven los hallazgos del estudio sobre el cáncer de útero como dignos de una exploración más profunda, pero aún no deberían discutirse con los pacientes.

“Aún tengo mis dudas”, dijo. “Se necesita mucha más información”.

Mientras tanto, James-Todd y otros investigadores creen que han construido un sólido corpus de evidencia.

“Hay suficientes cosas que sí sabemos como para comenzar a tomar medidas, desarrollar intervenciones, proporcionar información útil a los médicos, pacientes y al público en general”, dijo Traci Bethea, profesora asistente en la Oficina de Salud de las Minorías e Investigación sobre Disparidades en Salud de la Universidad de Georgetown.

La responsabilidad de regular los productos de cuidado personal, incluidos los alisadores químicos para el cabello y las tinturas, que también se han vinculado con cánceres relacionados con hormonas, recae en la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos (FDA).

Sin embargo, la FDA no somete los productos de cuidado personal al mismo proceso de aprobación que utiliza para alimentos y medicamentos. La FDA solo restringe 11 categorías de productos químicos utilizados en cosméticos, mientras que las preocupaciones sobre los efectos en la salud han llevado a la Unión Europea a restringir al menos 2,400 sustancias.

En marzo, las representantes Ayanna Pressley (demócrata de Massachusetts) y Shontel Brown (demócrata de Ohio) pidieron a la FDA que investigara la posible amenaza para la salud que representan los alisadores químicos. Un representante de la FDA dijo que la agencia lo investigaría.

Los peinados naturales están resurgiendo entre las niñas y mujeres negras, pero muchas siguen dependiendo de la “crema adictiva”, según Dede Teteh, profesora asistente de salud pública en la Universidad Chapman.

Teteh tuvo su primer alisado permanente a los 8 años y ha luchado por dejar los alisadores de adulta. Ahora usa trenzas estilo “locs”. Hace poco, consideró alisarse químicamente el cabello para una entrevista de trabajo académica porque no quería que su cabello “fuera un obstáculo” cuando se presentara ante profesores blancos.

Teteh lideró un proyecto de investigación sobre la salud del cabello llamado “The Cost of Beauty” (El Costo de la Belleza) publicado en 2017. Ella y su equipo entrevistaron a 91 mujeres negras en el sur de California. Algunas reaccionaron de manera “combativa” ante la idea de dejar los alisadores y afirmaron que “todo puede causar cáncer”.

Sus reacciones reflejan los desafíos que enfrentan las mujeres negras en Estados Unidos, dijo Teteh.

“No es que la gente no quiera escuchar información relacionada con su salud”, dijo. “Pero quieren que la información se comparta de manera empática con la difícil situación de ser negra aquí en los Estados Unidos”.

Kara Nelson de KFF Health News colaboró con este informe.

Este artículo fue producido por KFF Health News, que publica California Healthline, un servicio editorialmente independiente de la  California Health Care Foundation. 

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Amy Goldstein
The Washington Post

@goldsteinamy

Read Amy's Stories

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

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

click to open the transcript

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

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: The Long Road to Reining In Short-Term PlansEpisode Number: 305Published: July 13, 2023

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

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Rovner: Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Amy Goldstein of The Washington Post.

Goldstein: Good to be with you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ollstein: Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Right

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cohrs: Yes.

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

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

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

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

Rovner: And got it, right?

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

Rovner: And that cured her? Yes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sable-Smith: Yeah, thanks for having me.

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Alice.

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

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

Rovner: Amy.

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

Rovner: Indeed. Well, my story this week is also about just plain good reporting. It’s called “Doctor Lands in the Doghouse After Giving Covid Vaccine Waivers Too Freely.” It’s by Brett Kelman of KFF Health News. But it’s about some old-fashioned reporting by another outlet, Nashville’s NewsChannel 5. It seemed that during the height of the covid vaccine rollout, when lots of places were requiring proof of vaccines and lots of people didn’t want to get them, the doctor in question, named Robert Coble, was providing waivers through a website without much —OK, any — oversight. How did they prove it? By obtaining a waiver for a reporter’s black Labrador retriever, Charlie. Earlier this spring, Coble quietly surrendered his medical license to the state Department of Health. Journalism works. OK, that is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us too. Special thanks, as always, to our producer, Francis Ying. Also as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still tweet me. I’m @jrovner. I’m on Threads too, @julie.rovner.

Rovner: Amy.

Goldstein: I’m @goldsteinamy.

Rovner: Rachel.

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

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The idea seems simple enough.

Preserve all the rituals of smoking: Light up a cigarette, inhale the smoke, including the nasty stuff that can kill you, and exhale. But remove most of the nicotine, the chemical that makes tobacco so darn hard to quit, to help smokers smoke less.

The Food and Drug Administration has been contemplating that strategy for at least six years as one way to make it easier for smokers to cut back, if not quit entirely. Less than two years ago, it authorized 22nd Century Group, a publicly traded plant biotech company based in Buffalo, New York, to advertise its proprietary low-nicotine cigarettes as modified-risk tobacco products.

Now, the first authorized cigarettes with 95% less nicotine than traditional smokes are coming to California, Florida, and Texas in early July, after a year of test-marketing in Illinois and Colorado. It’s part of an aggressive rollout by 22nd Century that, by year’s end, could bring its products to 18 states — markets that together account for more than half of U.S. cigarette sales.

But anti-smoking groups oppose greenlighting 22nd Century’s products. Instead, they urge federal regulators to expand on their original plan of setting a low-nicotine standard for all combustible cigarettes to make them minimally or nonaddictive. They expect the FDA to take the next step in that industrywide regulatory process as early as this fall.

“Unless and until there is a categorywide requirement that nicotine goes down to low, nonaddictive levels, this is not going to make a difference,” said Erika Sward, a spokesperson for the American Lung Association.

Major tobacco companies Altria, R.J. Reynolds, and ITG Brands did not respond to requests for comment.

Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause more than 480,000 deaths a year in the U.S., including from secondhand smoke, and contributes to tobacco use being the leading preventable cause of death nationally. In 2018, then-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb wrote that setting a maximum nicotine level “could result in more than 8 million fewer tobacco-caused deaths through the end of the century – an undeniable public health benefit.”

The FDA reasoned that people would collectively smoke fewer cigarettes and have less exposure to the deadly toxins that are still present in low-nicotine cigarettes.

22nd Century says it used a patent-protected process to control nicotine biosynthesis in the tobacco plant, enabling it to create a pack of cigarettes with about as much nicotine as one Marlboro. It says generally that it uses “modern plant breeding technologies, including genetic engineering, gene-editing, and molecular breeding.”

Keeping 5% of the nicotine is enough to prevent smokers from seeking more to satisfy their craving, said John Miller, president of 22nd Century’s smoking division.

“There’s just enough in there that your brain thinks it’s getting it, but it’s not,” Miller said. “That was really one of the reasons we got to these levels of nicotine, is because you don’t have that additional smoking.”

Miller said the low-nicotine cigarettes can help some smokers cut back or quit, perhaps in conjunction with a nicotine patch or gum, when they’ve tried and failed with other stop-smoking programs.

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids President Matthew L. Myers supports the development of an industrywide low-nicotine standard, saying the concept would work only if consumers no longer had the alternative of a higher-nicotine cigarette.

“The concern with a product that’s still addictive, but delivers low levels of nicotine, in fact is that consumers will smoke more, because the evidence shows that somebody who’s addicted will smoke enough to satisfy their craving,” Myers said.

Both the FDA and anti-smoking groups cited studies that found lower levels of nicotine don’t prompt smokers to smoke more to reach the same nicotine levels. But those studies assumed smokers wouldn’t have a high-nicotine alternative, anti-smoking groups and researchers said.

Allowing low-nicotine cigarettes while conventional cigarettes remain available may be a public health detriment if they discourage smokers from quitting entirely or encourage others to start smoking because they think there’s a safe way to experiment with cigarettes, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and several health associations wrote in a letter urging the FDA to reverse its 22nd Century decision.

22nd Century’s cigarettes are still dangerous, and consumers must substantially cut back or quit smoking to get health advantages. But anti-smoking groups fear many smokers won’t understand that.

“If people are looking at this as a magic bullet and are still continuing their tobacco use, they are not doing anything to change their risk,” said Sward, of the lung association.

Anti-smoking groups particularly object to allowing 22nd Century to market menthol cigarettes even as the FDA is considering outlawing such cigarettes nationwide.

FDA spokesperson Abby Capobianco confirmed that 22nd Century has the only FDA-authorized low-nicotine cigarette but did not respond to requests for comment on the FDA’s plans for regulating nicotine in cigarettes.

California already outlaws menthol flavoring, and Miller said the company won’t challenge that state’s ban and won’t sell its menthol cigarettes in California.

But Miller hopes the company will eventually win an exemption from any federal ban, in part, he said, because more than half of menthol smokers are likely to switch to conventional cigarettes.

“That’s not what the FDA wants to happen,” Miller said. “They need an offramp for these menthol smokers and ours is obviously the natural.”

The company is expanding into California, Florida, and Texas because of the nation-leading size of their smoking populations. It previously announced plans to also begin selling its very low-nicotine, or VLN, cigarettes this year in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah, and it may move into 10 more states.

The company is prioritizing seven states that offer tax incentives for products the FDA has said reduce tobacco risk, believing its cigarettes will have a price advantage over others in Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, New Mexico, and Utah. Miller said the company may lobby California lawmakers to add similar incentives as part of the state’s extensive efforts to discourage smoking, which still addicts 10% of its residents.

Miller declined to disclose the company’s market share from the two test states but said sales were above expectations.

“If we can get this to the level of, like, a nonalcoholic beer — you know, 3% to 5% of the category — it’s a game changer,” Miller said. “We know that there’s a latent demand in the market for this product.”

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The FDA approved Roche’s Columvi as a third-line treatment for a type of blood cancer called diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. This new Roche drug will compete against Epkinly, AbbVie’s recently approved DLBCL drug.

FDA approval of blockbuster AbbVie drug Rinvoq makes it the first oral therapy for moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease. The regulatory nod is the seventh for the drug, which belongs to a class of therapies called JAK inhibitors.

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

The formal end May 11 of the national public health emergency for covid-19 will usher in lots of changes in the way Americans get vaccines, treatment, and testing for the coronavirus. It will also change the way some people get their health insurance, with millions likely to lose coverage altogether.

Meanwhile, two FDA advisory committees voted unanimously this week to allow the over-the-counter sale of a specific birth control pill. Advocates of making the pill easier to get say it could remove significant barriers to the use of effective contraception and prevent thousands of unplanned pregnancies every year. The FDA, however, must still formally approve the change, and some of its staff scientists have expressed concerns about whether teenagers and low-literacy adults will be able to follow the directions without the direct involvement of a medical professional.

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

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Tami Luhby
CNN

@luhby

Read Tami's stories

Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times

@sangerkatz

Read Margot's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The formal public health emergency may be over, but covid definitely is not. More than 1,000 people in the United States died of the virus between April 19 and April 26, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While most Americans have put covid in their rearview mirrors, it remains a risk around the country.
• The Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on “ghost networks,” lists of health professionals distributed by insurance companies who are not taking new patients or are not actually in the insurance company’s network. Ghost networks are a particular problem in mental health care, where few providers take health insurance at all.
• Another trend in the business of health care is primary care practices being bought by hospitals, insurance companies, and even Amazon. This strategy was popular in the 1990s, as health systems sought to “vertically integrate.” But now the larger entities may have other reasons for having their own networks of doctors, including using their patients to create revenue streams.
• Court battles continue over the fate of the abortion pill mifepristone, as a federal appeals court in New Orleans prepares to hear arguments about a lower-court judge’s ruling that would effectively cancel the drug’s approval by the FDA. In West Virginia, the maker of the generic version of the drug is challenging the right of the state to ban medication approved by federal officials. At the same time, a group of independent abortion clinics from various states is suing the FDA to drop restrictions on how mifepristone can be prescribed, joining mostly Democratic-led states seeking to ensure access to the drug.

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

Julie Rovner: Slate’s “Not Every Man Will Be as Dumb as Marcus Silva,” by Moira Donegan and Mark Joseph Stern.

Joanne Kenen: The Baltimore Banner’s “Baltimore Isn’t Accessible for People With Disabilities. Fixing It Would Cost Over $650 Million,” by Hallie Miller and Adam Willis.

Tami Luhby: CNN’s “Because of Florida Abortion Laws, She Carried Her Baby to Term Knowing He Would Die,” by Elizabeth Cohen, Carma Hassan, and Amanda Musa.

Margot Sanger-Katz: The New Yorker’s “The Problem With Planned Parenthood,” by Eyal Press.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• CNN’s “Here’s How the End of the Covid-19 Public Health Emergency Affects You,” by Tami Luhby and Alex Leeds Matthews.
• The New York Times’ “Corporate Giants Buy Up Primary Care Practices at Rapid Pace,” by Reed Abelson.
• Vox’s “Independents Back Abortion Rights. They’re Less Sure Democrats Do,” by Rachel M. Cohen.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Crisis Is Officially Ending, but Covid Confusion Lives On

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at KFF Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We are taping this week on Thursday, May 11, 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 Tami Luhby, of CNN.

Tami Luhby: Hello.

Rovner: Margot Sanger Katz, The New York Times.

Sanger-Katz: Good morning.

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: So the news on the debt ceiling standoff, just so you know, is that there is no news. Congressional leaders and White House officials are meeting again on Friday, and we still expect to not see this settled until the last possible minute. But there was plenty of other health news. We will start with the official end of the U.S. public health emergency for covid. We have talked at some length about the Medicaid unwinding that’s now happening and a potential to end some telehealth service reimbursement. But there’s a lot more that’s going away after May 11. Tami, you’ve been working to compile everything that’s about to change. What are the high points here?

Luhby: Well, there are a lot of changes depending on what type of insurance you have and whether we’re talking about testing, treatment, or vaccines. So I can give you a quick rundown. We wrote a visual story on this today. If you go to CNN.com, you’ll find it on the homepage right now.

Rovner: I will link to it in the show notes for the podcast.

Luhby: Basically, many people will be paying more for treatments and for tests. However, vaccines will generally remain free for almost everyone. And basically, if you look at our story, you’ll see the color-coded guide as to how it may impact you. But basically, testing — at-home tests are no longer guaranteed to be free. So if you’ve been going to your CVS or somewhere else to pick up your eight tests a month, your insurer may opt to continue providing it for free, but I don’t think many will. And then for lab tests, again, it really depends. But if you have Medicaid, all tests will be free through 2024. However, if you have private insurance or Medicare, you will probably have to start paying out-of-pocket for tests that are ordered by your provider. Those deductibles, those pesky deductibles, and copays or coinsurance will start kicking in again. And for treatments, it’s a little bit different again. The cost will vary by treatment if you have Medicare or private insurance. However, Paxlovid and treatments that are purchased by the federal government, such as Paxlovid, will be free as long as supplies last. Now, also, if you’re uninsured, there is a whole different situation. It’ll be somewhat more difficult for them. But there are still options. And, you know, the White House has been working to provide free treatments and vaccines for them.

Rovner: So if you get covid, get it soon.

Luhby: Like today. Right, exactly. Yeah, but with vaccines, even though, again, they’re free as long as the federal supplies last — but because of the Affordable Care Act, the CARES Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, people with private insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid will actually continue to be able to get free vaccines after the federal supplies run out.

Rovner: After May 11.

Luhby: It’s very confusing.

Rovner: It is very confusing. That’s why you did a whole graphic. Joanne, you wanted to add something.

Kenen: And the confusion is the problem. We have lots of problems, but, like, last week, we talked a little bit about this. You know, are we still in an emergency? We’re not in an emergency the way we were in 2020, 2021, but it’s not gone. We all know it’s much, much better, but it’s not gone. And it could get worse again, particularly if people are confused, if people don’t know how to test, if people don’t know that they can still get things. The four of us are professionals, and, like, Tami’s having to read this complicated color-coded chart — you know, you get this until September 2024, but this goes away in 2023. And, you know, if you have purple insurance, you get this. And if you have purple polka-dotted insurance, you get that. And the lack of clarity is dangerous, because if people don’t get what they’re eligible for because they hear “emergency over, everything — nothing’s free anymore” — we’re already having trouble with uptake. We don’t have enough people getting boosters. People don’t know that they can get Paxlovid and that it’s free and that it works. We are still in this very inadequate response. We’re not in the terrifying emergency of three years ago, but it’s not copacetic. You know, it’s not perfect. And this confusion is really part of what really worries me the most. And the people who are most likely to be hurt are the people who are always most likely to be hurt: the people who are poor, the people who are in underserved communities, the people who are less educated, and it’s disproportionately people in minority communities. We’ve seen this show before, and that’s part of what I worry about — that there’s a data issue that we’ll get to whenever Julie decides to get to it, right?

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, and that’s the thing. With so much of the emergency going away, we’re not really going to know as much as we have before.

Sanger-Katz: In some ways, how you feel about this transition really reflects how you feel about the way that our health care system works in general. You know, what happened for covid is —and I’m oversimplifying a little bit — is we sort of set up a single-payer system just for one disease. So everyone had access to all of the vaccines, everyone had access to all of the tests, everyone had access to all of the treatments basically for free. And we also created this huge expansion of Medicaid coverage by no longer allowing the states to kick people out if they no longer seem to be eligible. So we had the kind of system that I think a lot of people on the left would like to see, not just for one disease but for every disease, where you have kind of more universal coverage and where the cost of obtaining important treatments and prevention is zero to very low. And this is definitely going to be a bumpy transition, but it’s basically a transition to the way our health care system works for every other disease. So if you are someone who had some other kind of infectious disease or a chronic disease like cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, whatever, you’ve been sort of dealing with all of this stuff the whole time — that you have to pay for your drugs; that, you know, that testing is expensive; that it’s confusing where you get things; that, you know, there’s a lot of complexity and hoops you have to jump through; that a lot depends on what kind of insurance you have; that what kind of insurance you can get depends on your income and other demographic characteristics. And so I find this transition to be pretty interesting because it seems like it would be weird for the United States to just forever have one system for this disease and another system for every other disease. And of course, we do have this for people who are experiencing kidney disease: They get Medicare, they get the government system, regardless of whether they would otherwise be eligible for Medicare.

Rovner: We should point out that Congress did that in 1972. They haven’t really done it since.

Kenen: And when it was much more rare than it was today.

Rovner: And when people didn’t live very long with it mostly.

Kenen: We didn’t have as much diabetes either.

Sanger-Katz: But anyway, I just think this transition kind of just gives us a moment to reflect on, How does the system work in general? How do we feel about how the system works in general? Are these things good or bad? And I agree with everything that Joanne said, that the confusion around this is going to have public health impacts as relates to covid. But we have lots of other diseases where we just basically have the standard system, and now we’re going to have the standard system for covid, too.

Kenen: You could have gone to the hospital with the bad pneumonia and needed oxygen, needed a ventilator, and when they tested you, if you had covid, it was all free. And if you had, you know, regular old-fashioned pneumonia, you got a bill. I agree with everything Margot said, but it’s even that silly. You could have had the same symptoms in your same lungs and you had two different health care systems and financing systems. None of us have ever thought anything made sense.

Rovner: Yes, well, I actually —

Kenen: That’s why we have a podcast. Otherwise, you know —

Sanger-Katz: And also the way that the drugs and vaccines were developed was also totally different, right? With the government deeply involved in the technology and development, you know, funding the research, purchasing large quantities of these drugs in bulk in advance. I mean, this is just not the way that our system really works for other diseases. It’s been a very interesting sort of experiment, and I do wonder whether it will be replicated in the future.

Luhby: Right. But it was also clear that this is not the beginning of the pushback. I mean, Congress has not wanted to allocate more money, you know, and there’s been a lot of arguments and conflicts over the whole course of this so-called single-payer system, or this more flexible system. So the U.S.’ approach to health care has been pushing its way in for many months.

Rovner: I naively, at the beginning of the pandemic, when we first did this and when the Republicans all voted for it, it’s like, let’s have the federal government pay the hospitals for whatever care they’re providing and make everything free at point of service to the patient — and I thought, Wow, are we going to get used to this and maybe move on? And I think the answer is exactly the opposite. It’s like, let’s get rid of it as fast as we possibly can.

Kenen: There’s money that the government has put in. I believe it is $5 billion into the next generation of vaccines and treatments, because the vaccine we have has certainly saved many lives. But as we all know, it’s not perfect. You know, it’s preventing death, but not infection. It’s not ending circulation of the disease. So we need something better. This debt ceiling fight, if the people in the government could spend all $5 billion today — like we were joking, if you want to get covid, if you’re going to get covid, get it today — I mean, if they could, they would spend all $5 billion of it today, too, because that could be clawed back. I mean, that’s — it’s going to be part of the coming fight.

Luhby: But the question is, even if they develop it, will anyone take it, or will enough people take it? That’s another issue.

Rovner: Well, since we’re sort of on the subject, I’m going to skip ahead to what I was going to bring up towards the end, which I’m calling “This Week in Our Dysfunctional Health System.”

Kenen: We could call it that way every week.

Rovner: Yes, that’s true. But this is particularly about how our health system doesn’t work. First up is “ghost networks.” Those are where insurers provide lists of health care providers who are not, in fact, available to those patients. A quote “secret shopper survey” by the staff of the Senate Finance Committee found that more than 80% of mental health providers found in insurance directories in 12 plans from six states were unreachable, not accepting new patients, or not actually in network. This is not a new problem. We’ve been hearing about it for years and years. Why does it persist? One would think that you could clean up your provider directory. That would be possible, right?

Kenen: Didn’t they legislate that, though? Didn’t they say a few years ago you have to clean it up? I mean, there are going to be some mistakes because there’s, you know, many, many providers and people will make changes or leave practices or … [unintelligible] …  jobs or whatever. But I thought that they had supposedly, theoretically, taken care of this a couple years ago in one of the annual regulations for ACA or something.

Rovner: They supposedly, theoretically, took care of the hospitals reporting their prices in a way that consumers can understand, too. So we’ve discovered in our dysfunctional health care system that Congress passing legislation or HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] putting out rules doesn’t necessarily make things so.

Kenen: Really?

Rovner: Yeah. I just — this was one that I had thought, Oh, boy, I have a whole file on that from like the 1990s.

Sanger-Katz: It’s a huge problem, though. I mean —

Rovner: Oh, it is.

Sanger-Katz: You know, we have a system where, for large groups of Americans, you are expected to shop for a health insurance plan. If you’re purchasing a marketplace plan for yourself, if you are purchasing a Medicare Advantage plan when you become eligible for Medicare, and in many cases, if you have a choice of employer plans, you know, you’re supposed to pick the plan that’s best for you. And we have a system that tells people that having those kinds of choices is good and maximizes the benefits to people, to be able to pick the best plan. But for a lot of people, being able to have the doctors and hospitals that they use or to have a choice of a wide range of doctors for various problems, including mental health services, is a huge selling point of one plan versus another. And again, you have these ghost networks, when you have this lack of transparency and accuracy of this information, it just causes people to be unable to make those good choices and it undermines the whole system of market competition that underpins all of this policy design. I think you can argue that there are not a million gazillion people who are actually shopping on the basis of this. But I do think that knowing whether your medical providers are covered when you’re choosing a new health care plan is actually something that a lot of people do look into when they are choosing a health insurance plan. And discovering that a doctor that you’ve been seeing for a long time and whose relationship you really value and whose care has been important to you is suddenly dishonestly represented as a part of an insurance plan that you’ve selected is just, you know, it’s a huge disappointment. It causes huge disruptions in people’s care. And I think the other thing that this study highlighted is that health insurance coverage for mental health services continues to be a very large problem. There has been quite a lot of legislation and regulation trying to expand coverage for mental health care. But there are these kind of lingering problems where a lot of mental health care providers simply don’t accept insurance or don’t accept very many patients who have insurance. And so I think that this report did a good job of highlighting that place where I think these problems are even worse than they are with the health care system at large. It’s just very hard to find mental health care providers who will take your insurance.

Rovner: And I would say, when you’re in mental health distress or you have a relative who’s in mental health distress, the last thing you need is to have to call 200 different providers to find one who can help you.

Kenen: A lot of the ones that are taking insurance are these online companies, and the good thing is that they’re taking insurance and that there may be convenience factors for people, although there’s also privacy and other factors on the downside. But there have been reports about, your data is not private, and I have no idea how you find out which company is a good actor in that department and which company is just selling identifiable data. I mean, I think it was The Washington Post that had a story about that a couple of weeks ago. You know, you click in on something — straight to the data broker. So, yeah, you get insurance coverage, but at a different price.

Rovner: Well, overlaid over all of this is consolidation, this time at the primary care level of health care. Margot, your colleague Reed Abelson had a big story this week on primary care practices being bought up by various larger players in the health care industry, including hospitals, insurance companies, pharmacy chains, and even Amazon. These larger entities say this can act as a move towards more coordinated, value-based care, which is what we say we all want. But there’s also the very real possibility that these giant, vertical, mega medical organizations can just start to name their own price. I mean, this is something that the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] in theory could go after but has been kind of loath to and that Congress could go after but has also been kind of loath to.

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, in some ways we’ve seen this movie before. There was a big wave of primary care acquisitions that happened, I think, in the 1990s by hospitals. And the hospitals learned pretty quickly that primary care doctors are kind of a money-losing proposition, and they divested a lot. But I think what Reed documented so nicely is that the entities that are buying primary care now are more diverse and they have different business strategies. So it’s not just hospitals who are sort of trying to get more patients referred to their higher-profit specialists, but it’s also Medicare Advantage insurers who benefit from being able to tell the primary care doctors to diagnose their patients with lots of diseases that generate profits for the plan, and it’s other kinds of groups that see primary care as kind of the front door to other services that can be revenue-generating. And it’s very — it will be very interesting to see what the effects of these will be and whether these will turn out to be good business decisions for these new entities and of course also whether it will turn out to be good for patient care.

Rovner: Yeah, I remember in the 1990s when hospitals were buying up doctor practices, the doctors ended up hating it because they were asked to work much harder, see patients for a shorter period of time, and some of them actually — because they were now on salary rather than being paid for each patient — were cutting back on, you know, in general, on the amount of care they were providing. And that was what I think ended up with a lot of these hospitals divesting. It didn’t work out the way the hospitals hoped it would. But as you point out, Margot, this is completely different, so we will — we will see how this moves on. All right. Let’s go back a little bit. We’re going to talk about abortion in a minute. But first, something that could prevent a lot of unintended pregnancies: On Wednesday, an advisory committee for the Food and Drug Administration — actually two advisory committees — unanimously recommended that the agency approve an over-the-counter birth control pill. This has been a long time coming here in the U.S., even though pills like these are available without prescription in much of Europe and have been for years. But while the FDA usually follows the recommendations of its advisory committees, we know that some FDA scientists have expressed concerns about over-the-counter availability. So what’s the problem with giving women easier access to something that so many depend on?

Kenen: There are trade-offs. And there are — some of the scientists at the FDA are more conservative than others about, What if the woman doesn’t understand how to take the pill properly? Things like that. I mean, obviously, if we go the over-the-counter route, as other countries are doing, there have to be very simple, easy-to-understand explanations in multiple languages. Pharmacists should be able to explain it like, you know, “You have to take it every day, and you have to take it at approximately the same time every day,” and things like that. So, you know, obviously not taking it right doesn’t protect you as much as taking it right. But there are a lot of people who will be able to get it. You know, getting a prescription is not always the easiest thing in the world. Or if you’re lucky, you just click on something and somebody calls your doctor and gets you a refill. But that doesn’t always work and not everybody has access to that, and you have to still see your doctor sometimes for renewals. So if you’re a working person who doesn’t have sick leave and you have to take time off from work every three months to get a refill or you have to hire child care or you have to take three buses — you know, it takes a whole day, and then you sit in a waiting room at a clinic. I mean, our health system is not patient-friendly.

Rovner: I was going to say, to go back to what Tami was talking about earlier — if pills are available over the counter, it’s going to depend on, you know, what your insurance is like, whether you would get it covered.

Kenen: The cost.

Rovner: That’s right. And it could end up being —

Kenen: But I don’t think the FDA is concerned about that.

Rovner: No, they’re not. That’s not their job.

Kenen: The pill is pretty safe, and these are lower-dose ones than the pills that were invented, you know, 50 years ago. These are lower-dose, safer drugs with fewer side effects. But I mean, there’s concern about the rare side effect, there’s concern about people not knowing how to take it, all that kind of stuff. But Julie just mentioned the cost of coverage is a separate issue because under the ACA it’s covered. And if it becomes over the counter, the mechanism for getting that covered is, at this point, unclear.

Sanger-Katz: But we do have a system now where, for a lot of women, obtaining birth control pills depends on being able to get a doctor’s appointment on a regular basis. I think, you know, this is not standard practice, but I do think that there are a lot of OB-GYNs who basically won’t write you for a birth control pill unless you come in on a regular basis to receive other kinds of health screenings. And I think many of them do that with good intentions because they want to make sure that people are getting Pap smears and other kinds of preventive health services. But on the other hand, it does mean that there are a lot of women who, if they don’t have time or they can’t afford to come in for regular doctor’s appointments, lose access to birth control. And I think over-the-counter pills is one way of counteracting that particular problem.

Rovner: And I think that’s exactly why so many of the medical groups are urging this. During the more than a decade-long fight over making the morning-after pill over the counter, the big hang-up was what to do about minors. Even President Obama, a major backer of women’s reproductive health rights, seemed unhappy at the idea of his then-barely teenage daughters being able to get birth control so easily and without notifying either parent. It seems unimaginable that we’re not going to have that same fight here. I mean, literally, we spent six years trying to figure out what age teens could be to safely buy morning-after pills, which are high doses of basically these birth control pills. I’m actually surprised that we haven’t really seen the minor fight yet.

Kenen: I think everyone’s waiting for somebody else to do it first. I mean, like Julie, I wasn’t expecting to hear more about age limitations, and that’ll probably come up when the FDA acts, because I think the advisory committee just wanted to — they were pretty strong saying, “Yeah, make this OTC.”

Sanger-Katz: I also think the politics around emergency contraception are a little bit different because I think that, while physicians understand that those pills are basically just high-dose birth control pills and that they work in just the same way as typical contraception, I think there’s a perception among many members of the public that because you can take them after unprotected sex, that they might be something closer to an abortion. Now, that is not true, but because I think that is a common misperception, it does lead to more discomfort around the availability of those pills, whereas birth control pills — while I think there are some people who object to their wide dissemination and certainly some who are concerned about them in the hands of children, I think they are more broadly accepted in our society.

Rovner: We obviously are going to see, and we’ll probably see fairly soon. We’re expecting, I guess, a decision from the FDA this summer, although with the morning-after pill we expected a decision from FDA that lingered on for many months, in some cases many years.

Kenen: And I think it’s at least hypothetically possible that states will not do what the FDA says. Say the FDA says they can be over the counter with no age limitations. I can see that becoming a fight in conservative states. I mean, I don’t know exactly the mechanism for how that would fall, but I could certainly think that somebody is going to dream up a mechanism so that a 12-year-old can’t get this over the counter.

Rovner: I want to move to abortion because first up is the continuing question over the fate of the abortion pill, which we get to say at this point: not the same as the emergency contraceptive pill, which, as Margot said, is just high-dosage regular birth control pills. Needless to say, that’s the one that we’re having the current court action over. And there was even more action this week, although not from that original case, which will be heard by the Court of Appeals later in this month. In West Virginia, a judge declined to throw out a case brought by GenBioPro. They are the maker of the generic version of mifepristone, the abortion pill. That generic, which accounts for more than half the market, would be rendered unapproved even under the compromise position of the Court of Appeals because it was approved after the 2016 cutoff period. Remember, the Court of Appeals said, We don’t want to cancel the approval, but we want to roll it back to the date when FDA started to loosen the restrictions on it. So, in theory, there would be no generic allowed, but that’s actually not even what the West Virginia lawsuit is about; it’s about challenging the state’s total abortion ban as violating the federal supremacy of the FDA over state laws. Joanne, that’s what sort of you were talking about now with contraceptives, too. And this is the big unanswered question: Can states basically overrule the FDA’s approval and the FDA’s approval for even an age limit?

Kenen: Well, I mean, I’m not saying they can, but I am saying that I don’t know where the question will come down. Go back to the regular birth control; I can certainly see conservative states trying to put age limits on it. And I don’t know how that’ll play out legally. But this is a different issue, and this is why the abortion pill lawsuits are not just about the abortion pill. They’re about drug safety and drug regulation in this country. The FDA is the agency we charge with deciding whether drugs are safe and good for human beings, and not the system of politicians and state legislators in 50 different states replacing their judgment. So obviously, it’s more complicated, because it’s abortion, but one of several bottom lines in this case is who gets to decide: the FDA or state legislature.

Rovner: And right: Do states get to overrule what the federal Food and Drug Administration says? Well, I —

Kenen: Remember, some states have had — you know, California’s had stricter regulations on several health things, you know, and that’s been allowed that you could have higher ceilings for various health — you know, carcinogenics and so forth. But they haven’t fundamentally challenged the authority of the FDA.

Rovner: Yet. Well, since confusion is our theme of the week, also this week a group of independent abortion clinics led by Whole Woman’s Health, which operates in several states, filed suit against the FDA, basically trying to add Virginia, Kansas, and Montana to the other 18 states that sued to force FDA to further reduce the agency’s current restrictions on mifepristone. A federal judge in Washington state ruled — the same day that Texas judge did that mifepristone should have its approval removed — judge in Washington said the drug should become even more easily available. In the real world, though, this is just sowing so much confusion that nobody knows what’s allowed and what isn’t, which I think is kind of the point for opponents, right? They just want to make everybody as confused as possible, if they can’t actually ban it.

Sanger-Katz: I think they actually want to ban it. I mean, I think that’s their primary goal. I’m sure there are some that will settle for confusion as a secondary outcome. I think just this whole mess of cases really highlights what a weird moment we are, where we’re having individual judges and individual jurisdictions making determinations about whether or not the FDA can or can’t approve the safety and efficacy of drugs. You know, as Joanne said, we’ve just had a system in this country since the foundation of the FDA where they are the scientific experts and they make determinations and those determinations affect drug availability and legal status around the country. And this is a very unusual situation where we’re seeing federal courts in different jurisdictions making their own judgments about what the FDA should do. And I think the Texas judge that struck down the approval of mifepristone, at least temporarily, has come in for a lot of criticism. But what the judge in Washington state did is sort of a flavor of the same thing. It’s telling the FDA, you know, how they should do their business. And it’s a weird thing.

Rovner: It is. Well, one last thing this week, since we’re talking about confusion, and the public is definitely confused, according to two different polls that are out this week — on the one hand, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that a full two-thirds of respondents say mifepristone, the abortion pill, should stay on the market, and more than half say they disagree with the Supreme Court’s overturn of Roe v. Wade, including 70% of independents and more than a third of Republicans. Yet, in focus groups in April, more than a third of independents couldn’t differentiate Democrats’ position on abortion from Republicans’. As reported by Vox, one participant said, quote, “I really haven’t basically heard anything about which party is leaning toward it and which one isn’t.” When pressed, she said, “If I had to guess, I would say Democrat would probably be against it and Republican would probably be for it.” Another participant said she thought that Joe Biden helped get the Supreme Court judges who overturned Roe. We really do live in a bubble, don’t we? I think that was sort of the most mind-blowing thing I’ve read since — all the months since Roe got overturned, that there are people who care about this issue who have no idea where anybody stands.

Sanger-Katz: I think it’s just a truth about our political system that there are a lot of Americans who are what the political scientists call low-information voters. These are people who are just not following the news very closely and not following politics very closely. And they may have a certain set of opinions about issues of the day, but I think it is a big challenge to get those people aware of where candidates stand on issues of concern to them and to get them activated. And it doesn’t really surprise me that independent voters are the ones who seem to be confused about where the parties are, because they’re probably the least plugged into politics generally. And so, for Democrats, it does seem like this lack of information is potentially an opportunity for them, because it seems like when you ask voters what they want on abortion, they want things that are more aligned with Democratic politicians’ preferences than Republicans’. And so it strikes me that perhaps some of those people in the focus group who didn’t know who stood for what, maybe those are gettable voters for the Democratic Party. But I think — you know, we’re about to go into a very heated campaign season, you know, as we go into the presidential primaries and then the general election in which there are going to be a lot of ads, a lot of news coverage. And, you know, I think abortion is very likely to be a prominent issue during the campaigns. And I think it is almost certainly going to be a major goal of the Biden presidential reelection campaign to try to make sure that these people know where Biden stands relative to abortion, because it is an issue that so many voters agree with him on.

Rovner: And it makes you see, I mean, there’s a lot of Republicans who are trying to sort of finesse this issue now and say, you know, “Oh, well, we’re going to restrict it, but we’re not going to ban it,” or, “We have all these exceptions” that are, of course, in practice, you can’t use. Obviously, these are the kinds of voters who might be attracted to that. So we will obviously see this as it goes on.

Kenen: But Julie, do you remember whether they were actually voters? Because I had the same reaction to you: like, of all the things to not be sure of, that one was pretty surprising. But we also know that in places like Kansas where, you know, where there are not that many Democrats, these referenda won. Voters have supported abortion rights in the 2022 elections and in these state referenda. So independents must be voting with the —

Rovner: I was going to say, I think if you’re doing —

Kenen: Something isn’t totally — something is not totally adding up there.

Rovner: If you’re doing a focus group for politics, one presumes that you get voters. So, I mean, I think that was — that was the point of the focus group. But yeah, it’s —

Kenen: Or people who say they’re voters.

Rovner: Or people who say they’re voters. That is a different issue. All right. Well, something not that confusing: 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. Tami, why don’t you go first this week?

Luhby: OK. Well, I picked a story from CNN by my colleagues on the health team. It’s titled “Because of Florida Abortion Laws, She Carried Her Baby to Term Knowing He Would Die,” by Elizabeth Cohen, Carma Hassan, and Amanda Musa. And I have to say that when I first read this story, I couldn’t get through it, because it was so upsetting. And then when I selected it as an extra credit, I had to read it in full. But it’s about a family in Florida whose son was born without kidneys. They knew that he was going to die. And it’s about all of the effects from everything from, you know, the mother, Deborah Dorbert, on her physically and emotionally. But it also, you know, talked about the family and, you know, the effect on the marriage and the effect — which was just so upsetting — was on the 4-year-old son, who became very attached. I don’t think they even knew — well, it wasn’t a girl. It was actually a boy. But for some reason, this older son felt that it was a girl and just kept saying, like, “My sister is going to do X, Y, Z.” And, you know, how did the parents break it to him? Because he saw that his mother was, you know, pregnant and getting larger. And, you know, it was just figuring out how to break it to him that no baby was coming home. So the details are heart-wrenching. The quotes in the third paragraph: “‘He gasped for air a couple of times when I held him,’ said Dorbert. ‘I watched my child take his first breath, and I held him as he took his last one.’” So, you know, these are things that, you know — and we just talked about how the states are arguing over what exceptions there should be, if any, you know, and these are the stories that the legislators don’t think about when they pass these laws.

Rovner: I think I said this before because we’ve had a story like this almost every week. This one was particularly wrenching. But I think the one thing that all these stories are doing is helping people understand, particularly men, that there are complications in pregnancy, that they’re not that rare, that, you know, that they sort of throw off and say, “Oh, well, that’s, you know, one in a million,” — It’s not one in a million. It’s like one in a thousand. That’s a lot of people. So I mean, that’s why there are a lot of these stories, because there are a lot of pregnancies that don’t go as expected.

Luhby: Right. And it really shows the chilling effect on doctors because, you know, you would say, “Oh, it’s simple: life of the mother or, you know, life of the fetus” or something like that. That seems pretty straightforward, but it isn’t. And these doctors, in cases where, you know, other cases where it is the life of the mother, which seem, again, very straightforward, the doctors are not willing to do anything because they’re afraid.

Rovner: I know. Joanne.

Kenen: This is a story from The Baltimore Banner that has a very long title. It’s by Hallie Miller and Adam Willis, and it’s called “Baltimore Isn’t Accessible for People With Disabilities. Fixing It Would Cost Over $650 Million.” Baltimore is not that big a city. $650 million is a lot of curbs and barriers. And there’s also a lot of gun violence in Baltimore. If you drive around Baltimore, and I work there a few days a week, you see lots of people on walkers and scooters and wheelchairs because many of them are survivors of gun violence. And you see them struggling. And there were quotes from people saying they, you know, were afraid walking near the harbor that they would fall in because there wasn’t a path for them. It is not invisible, but we treat it like it’s invisible. And it’s been many years since the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed, and we still don’t have it right. It’s a — this one isn’t confusion like everything else we talked about today. I loved Margot’s phrase about confusion as a secondary outcome. I think you should write a novel with that title. But it’s — this isn’t confusion. This is just not doing the right thing for people who are — we’re just not protecting or valuing.

Rovner: And I’d say for whom there are laws that this should be happening. Margot.

Sanger-Katz: I had another story about abortion. This one was in The New Yorker, called “The Problem With Planned Parenthood,” by Eyal Press. The story sort of looked at Planned Parenthood, you know, which is kind of the largest abortion provider in the country. It’s — I mean, it’s really a network of providers. They have all these affiliates. They’re often seen as being more monolithic than perhaps they are. But this story argued that people who were operating independent abortion clinics, who do represent a lot of the abortion providers in the country as well, have felt that Planned Parenthood has been too cautious legally, too afraid of running afoul of state laws, and so that has led them to be very conservative and also too conservative from the perspective of business, and that there is a view that Planned Parenthood is not serving the role that it could be by expanding into areas where abortion is less available. I thought it was just interesting to hear these criticisms and hoped to understand that the community of abortion providers are, you know, they’re diverse and they have different perspectives on how abortion access should work and what kinds of services should be provided in different settings. And they also view each other as business competition in some cases. I mean, a lot of the complaints in this article had to do with Planned Parenthood opening clinics near to independent clinics and kind of taking away the business from them, making it harder for them to survive and operate. Anyway, I thought it was a very interesting window into these debates, and it did mesh with some of my reporting experience, particularly around the legal cautiousness. I did a story before the Dobbs decision came down from the Supreme Court where Planned Parenthood in several states had just stopped offering abortions even before the court had ruled, because they anticipated that the court would rule and they just didn’t want to make any mistake about running afoul of these laws such that, you know, women were denied care that was still legal in the days leading up to the Supreme Court decision.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a really good story. Well, my story is kind of tangentially about abortion. It’s from Slate, and it’s called “Not Every Man Will Be as Dumb as Marcus Silva,” by Moira Donegan and Mark Joseph Stern. And it’s about a case from Texas, of course, that we talked about a couple of weeks ago, where an ex-husband is suing two friends of his ex-wife for wrongful death, for helping her get an abortion. Well, now the two friends have filed a countersuit claiming that the ex-husband knew his wife was going to have an abortion beforehand because he found the pill in her purse and he put it back so that he could use the threat of a lawsuit to force her to stay with him. It feels like a soap opera, except it is happening in real life. And my first thought when I read this is that it’s going to make some great episode of “Dateline” or “20/20.” That is our show, as always.

Kenen: Or, not “The Bachelor.”

Rovner: Yeah, but not “The Bachelor.” That is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us too. Special thanks, as always, to our ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m still there. I’m at @jrovner. Joanne?

Kenen: @JoanneKenen.

Rovner: Tami.

Luhby: @Luhby.

Rovner: Margot.

Sanger-Katz: @sangerkatz.

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week, hopefully with a little less confusion. 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, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

La marihuana y otros productos que contienen THC, el principal ingrediente psicoactivo de la planta, se han vuelto más potentes y peligrosos a medida que la legalización los ha vuelto más accesibles.

Décadas atrás, el contenido de THC de la hierba solía ser inferior al 1,5%. Hoy, algunos productos tienen más de un 90%.

La euforia de antaño ha dado paso a algo más alarmante. Cientos de miles de personas llegan a salas de emergencias por crisis relacionadas con la marihuana, y millones sufren trastornos psicológicos vinculados al consumo de cannabis, según investigaciones federales.

Pero los organismos reguladores no están a la altura.

En los estados que permiten la venta y el consumo de la marihuana y sus derivados, la protección al consumidor no es consistente.

“En muchos estados, los productos tienen una etiqueta de advertencia y poco más por parte de las entidades reguladoras”, dijo Cassin Coleman, vicepresidente del comité de asesoramiento científico de la Asociación Nacional de la Industria del Cannabis.

En general, el gobierno federal no ha intervenido. Sigue prohibiendo la marihuana como sustancia catalogada en la Lista 1 —como droga sin uso médico aceptado y con un alto riesgo de abuso— en virtud de la Ley de Sustancias Controladas (CSA). Pero en lo que respecta a la venta de cannabis, que muchos estados han legalizado, no regula características como la pureza o la potencia.

La Administración de Drogas y Alimentos (FDA) “básicamente se ha cruzado de brazos y no ha cumplido con su deber de proteger la salud pública”, afirmó Eric Lindblom, de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Georgetown que anteriormente trabajó en el Centro para Productos del Tabaco de la FDA.

La marihuana se ha transformado profundamente desde que generaciones de estadounidenses la usaron por primera vez.

El cannabis se cultiva para suministrar dosis mucho más altas de THC. En 1980, el contenido de THC de la marihuana confiscada era inferior al 1,5%. Hoy en día, muchas variedades de flores de cannabis —la materia vegetal que se puede fumar en un porro— tienen más de un 30% de THC.

Recientemente, en un dispensario de California el menú incluía una variedad con un 41% de THC.

La legalización también ha abierto la puerta a productos que se extraen de la marihuana pero que no siquiera parecidos: concentrados de THC aceitosos, cerosos o cristalinos que se calientan e inhalan mediante el vapeo o el dab, utilizando dispositivos parecidos a un soplete.

Los concentrados actuales pueden tener más de un 90% de THC. Algunos se anuncian como THC casi puro.

Pocos personifican la expansión de la marihuana de forma tan clara como John Boehner, ex presidente de la Cámara de Representantes de Estados Unidos. El republicano de Ohio se opuso durante mucho tiempo a la marihuana y, en 2011, se declaró “inalterablemente contrario” a su legalización.

Ahora forma parte del consejo directivo de Acreage Holdings, un productor de derivados de la marihuana.

Y Acreage Holdings ilustra la evolución del sector. Su marca Superflux comercializa un producto para vapear —”resina pura en un formato cómodo e instantáneo”— y concentrados como “budder”, “sugar”, “shatter” y “wax”. La empresa anuncia su concentrado de “THCa cristalino” como “lo último en potencia”.

Según el Instituto Nacional sobre el Abuso de Drogas, las concentraciones más elevadas entrañan mayores riesgos. “Los riesgos de dependencia física y adicción aumentan con la exposición a altas concentraciones de THC, y las dosis más altas de THC tienen más probabilidades de producir ansiedad, agitación, paranoia y psicosis”, se explica en su sitio web.

En 2021, 16,3 millones de personas en Estados Unidos —el 5,8% de las personas de 12 años en adelante— habían sufrido un trastorno por consumo de marihuana en el último año, según una encuesta publicada en enero por el Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS).

Esta cifra es muy superior a la suma de los trastornos por consumo de cocaína, heroína, metanfetamina, estimulantes de venta bajo receta, como Adderall, o analgésicos recetados, como fentanilo y OxyContin.

Otras drogas son más peligrosas que la marihuana, y la mayoría de las personas afectadas por su consumo padecieron un caso leve. Pero aproximadamente 1 de cada 7 —más de 2,6 millones de personas— padecieron un caso grave, según la encuesta federal.

La mayoría de los médicos equiparan el término “trastorno grave por consumo de sustancias” con la adicción, señaló Wilson Compton, subdirector del Instituto Nacional sobre el Abuso de Drogas.

El trastorno por consumo de cannabis “puede ser devastador”, afirmó Smita Das, psiquiatra de Stanford y presidenta de un consejo sobre adicciones de la Asociación Americana de Psiquiatría.

Das dijo que ha visto vidas destrozadas por el cannabis: personas de éxito que han perdido familias y trabajos. “Se encuentran en una situación en la que no saben cómo han llegado, porque sólo era un porro, sólo era cannabis, y no se suponía que el cannabis les creara adicción”, explicó Das.

Entre los diagnósticos médicos atribuidos a la marihuana figuran la “dependencia del cannabis con trastorno psicótico con delirios” y el síndrome de hiperémesis cannabinoide, una forma de vómito persistente.

Se estima que unas 800,000 personas realizaron visitas a emergencias relacionadas con la marihuana en 2021, según un estudio del gobierno publicado en diciembre de 2022.

Derecho a desintoxicación.

Un padre de Colorado pensó que era cuestión de tiempo para que el cannabis matara a su hijo.

En la primavera de 2021, el adolescente pasó un semáforo en rojo, chocó contra otro auto —resultando heridos él y el otro conductor— y huyó del lugar, según recordó el padre en una entrevista.

En los restos del accidente, el padre encontró porros, envases vacíos de un concentrado de THC de alta potencia conocido como “wax” y un vaporizador de THC.

En el teléfono móvil de su hijo descubrió mensajes de texto y decenas de referencias al “dabbing” y a la hierba. El adolescente dijo que había estado fumando antes del accidente y que intentó suicidarse.

Semanas después, la policía ordenó su ingreso involuntario en un hospital para una evaluación psiquiátrica. Según un informe policial, creía que lo perseguían francotiradores de un cártel de drogas.

El médico que evaluó al adolescente le diagnosticó “abuso de cannabis”.

“Deja de consumir dabs o wax, ya que pueden volverte extremadamente paranoico”, escribió el médico. “Vete directamente al programa de desintoxicación que elijas”.

Según el relato del padre, en los dos últimos años el adolescente sufrió varias retenciones involuntarias, docenas de encuentros con la policía, repetidos encarcelamientos y una serie de estadías en centros de tratamiento hospitalario.

A veces parecía fuera de la realidad, y enviaba mensajes de texto diciendo que Dios le hablaba y le daba superpoderes.

Los daños también fueron económicos. Los reclamos al seguro médico por su tratamiento ascendieron a casi $600,000 y los gastos de la familia llegaron a casi $40,000 hasta febrero.

En las entrevistas para este artículo, el padre habló bajo condición de anonimato para no perjudicar la recuperación de su hijo.

Está convencido de que la enfermedad mental de su hijo fue el resultado del consumo de drogas. Dijo que los síntomas remitían cuando su hijo dejaba de consumir THC y volvían cuando usaba de nuevo.

Su hijo tiene ahora 20 años, ha dejado la marihuana y le va bien, dijo el padre, y añadió: "No me cabe la menor duda de que el consumo de cannabis fue lo que le causó la psicosis, los delirios y la paranoia".

Regulación estatal desigual

Ahora, el uso médico de la marihuana es legal en 40 estados y el Distrito de Columbia, y el uso recreativo o para adultos es legal en 22 estados más el Distrito de Columbia, según MJBizDaily, una publicación especializada.

Al principio de la pandemia de covid-19, mientras gran parte de Estados Unidos cerró sus negocios, los dispensarios de marihuana siguieron abiertos. Muchos estados los declararon negocios esenciales.

Pero sólo dos estados que permiten el uso para adultos, Vermont y Connecticut, han puesto límites al contenido de THC —30% para la flor de cannabis y 60% para los concentrados de THC— y eximen de los límites a los cartuchos precargados, dijo Gillian Schauer de la Asociación de Reguladores de Cannabis, un grupo de reguladores estatales.

Algunos estados limitan el número de onzas o gramos que los consumidores pueden comprar. Sin embargo, incluso un poco de marihuana puede equivaler a mucho THC, apuntó Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, profesora de políticas de salud, economía y derecho en la Universidad del Sur de California.

Algunos estados sólo permiten el uso médico de productos con bajo contenido de THC; por ejemplo, en Texas, las sustancias que no contienen más de un 0,5% de THC en peso. Y algunos estados exigen etiquetas de advertencia. En Nueva Jersey, los productos de cannabis con más de un 40% de THC deben declarar: "Este es un producto de alta potencia y puede aumentar el riesgo de psicosis".

La normativa sobre marihuana de Colorado tiene más de 500 páginas. Sin embargo, se enfatizan los límites de las protecciones al consumidor: "Este producto se ha producido sin supervisión reglamentaria en materia de salud, seguridad o eficacia".

Determinar las normas adecuadas puede no ser sencillo. Por ejemplo, las etiquetas de advertencia podrían proteger a la industria de la marihuana de su responsabilidad, al igual que hicieron con las empresas tabacaleras durante años. Poner un tope a la potencia podría limitar las opciones de las personas que toman dosis elevadas para aliviar problemas médicos.

En general, en el ámbito estatal, la industria del cannabis ha frenado los esfuerzos reguladores argumentando que unas normas onerosas dificultarían la competencia entre las empresas legítimas y las ilícitas, explicó Pacula.

Pacula y otros investigadores han pedido al gobierno federal que intervenga.

Meses después de terminar su mandato como comisionado de la FDA, Scott Gottlieb hizo un llamamiento similar.

Al quejarse de que los estados habían llegado "muy lejos mientras el gobierno federal permanecía al margen", Gottlieb pidió "un esquema nacional uniforme para el THC que proteja a los consumidores."

Eso fue en 2019 y poco ha cambiado desde entonces.

¿Dónde está la FDA?

La FDA supervisa los alimentos, los medicamentos recetados, los de venta libre y los dispositivos médicos. Regula el tabaco, la nicotina y los vapes de nicotina. Supervisa las etiquetas de advertencia del tabaco. En interés de la salud y la seguridad públicas, también regula los productos botánicos, productos médicos que pueden incluir material vegetal.

Sin embargo, cuando se trata de la marihuana para fumar, los concentrados de THC derivados del cannabis que se vapean o dabean y los comestibles infundidos con THC, la FDA parece estar muy al margen.

La marihuana medicinal que se vende en los dispensarios no está aprobada por la FDA. La agencia no ha avalado su seguridad o eficacia ni ha determinado la dosis adecuada. No inspecciona las instalaciones donde se producen los productos ni evalúa el control de calidad.

La agencia sí invita a los fabricantes a someter los productos del cannabis a ensayos clínicos y a su proceso de aprobación de medicamentos.

El sitio web de la FDA señala que el THC es el ingrediente activo de dos medicamentos aprobados por la FDA para el tratamiento del cáncer. Aparentemente, sólo por eso la sustancia está bajo la jurisdicción de la FDA.

La FDA tiene "todo el poder que necesita para regular de forma mucho más eficaz los productos de cannabis legalizados por los estados", afirmó Lindblom, ex funcionario de la agencia.

Al menos públicamente, la FDA no le ha prestado atención a los concentrados de THC derivados del cannabis o la hierba fumada en porros, sino más bien en otras sustancias: una variante del THC derivada del cáñamo, que el gobierno federal ha legalizado, y un derivado diferente del cannabis llamado cannabidiol o CBD, que se ha comercializado como terapéutico.

"La FDA se ha comprometido a vigilar el mercado, identificar los productos de cannabis que plantean riesgos y actuar, dentro de nuestras competencias, para proteger al público", declaró Courtney Rhodes, vocera de la FDA.

"Muchos, la mayoría de los productos con THC se ajustan a la definición de marihuana, que es una sustancia controlada. La Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regula la marihuana en virtud de la Ley de Sustancias Controladas (CSA). Le remitimos a la DEA para preguntas sobre la regulación y aplicación de las disposiciones de la CSA", escribió Rhodes en un correo electrónico.

La DEA, dependiente del Departamento de Justicia, no respondió a las preguntas formuladas para este artículo.

En cuanto al Congreso, quizá su medida más importante haya sido limitar la aplicación de la prohibición federal.

"Hasta ahora, la respuesta federal a las acciones estatales para legalizar la marihuana ha consistido, sobre todo, en permitir que los estados apliquen sus propias leyes sobre la droga", señaló un informe de 2022 del Servicio de Investigación del Congreso.

En octubre, el presidente Joe Biden ordenó al secretario de Salud y Servicios Humanos y al fiscal general que revisaran la postura del gobierno federal respecto a la marihuana: si debería seguir clasificada entre las sustancias más peligrosas y estrictamente controladas.

En diciembre, Biden firmó un proyecto de ley que ampliaba la investigación sobre la marihuana y obligaba a las agencias federales a estudiar sus efectos. La ley dice que las agencias tienen un año para publicar sus conclusiones.

Algunos defensores de la marihuana dicen que el gobierno federal podría desempeñar un papel más constructivo.

"La NORML no opina que el cannabis sea inocuo, sino que la mejor forma de mitigar sus riesgos potenciales es mediante la legalización, la regulación y la educación pública", afirmó Paul Armentano, subdirector del grupo antes conocido como Organización Nacional para la Reforma de las Leyes sobre la Marihuana (NORML).

"Los productos tienen que someterse a pruebas de pureza y potencia", añadió, y "el gobierno federal podría ejercer cierta supervisión en la concesión de licencias a los laboratorios que prueban esos productos".

Mientras tanto, según Coleman, asesor de la Asociación Nacional de la Industria del Cannabis, los estados se quedan "teniendo que actuar como si fueran USDA + FDA + DEA, todo al mismo tiempo".

¿Y dónde deja eso a los consumidores? Algunos, como Wendy E., jubilada en sus 60 años, luchan contra los efectos de la marihuana.

Wendy, que habló con la condición de que no se revelara su nombre, empezó a fumar marihuana en la secundaria en los años 70 y la convirtió en su estilo de vida durante décadas.

Luego, cuando su estado la legalizó, la compró en dispensarios "y enseguida me di cuenta de que la potencia era mucho mayor que la que yo había consumido tradicionalmente", contó. "Parecía haber aumentado de manera exponencial".

En 2020, explicó, la marihuana legal —mucho más fuerte que la hierba ilícita de su juventud— la llevó a obsesionarse con el suicidio.

Antes, la mujer que se define como "hippie de la madre tierra" encontraba camaradería pasando un porro con sus amigos. Ahora asiste a reuniones de Marihuana Anónimos, con otras personas que se recuperan de esta adicción.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@Shefalil

Read Shefali's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Confusing Fate of the Abortion Pill

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: The Confusing Fate of the Abortion PillEpisode Number: 293Published: April 13, 2023

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at KFF Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We are taping this week on Thursday, April 13, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast —really fast this week — and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. We are joined today by video conference by Victoria Knight of Axios.

Victoria Knight: Good morning.

Rovner: Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, Julie.

Rovner: And Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Shefali Luthra: Hello.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: I think it was last week.

Karlin-Smith: Time. Time —

Rovner: Time is a very flat circle right now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: For Medicaid.

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

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

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

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

Knight: — expelled —

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knight: @victoriaregisk.

Rovner: Sarah?

Karlin-Smith: @SarahKarlin.

Rovner: Shefali.

Luthra: @shefalil.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).