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.

Two months into the new administration, federal workers and contractors remain off-balance as the Trump administration ramps up its efforts to cancel jobs and programs — even as federal judges declare many of those efforts illegal and/or unconstitutional.

As it eliminates programs deemed duplicative or unnecessary, however, President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency is also cutting programs and workers aligned with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda.

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

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

Read Jessie's stories.

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

Rachel Roubein
The Washington Post

@rachel_roubein

Read Rachel's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Kennedy’s comments this week about allowing bird flu to spread unchecked through farms provided another example of the new secretary of health and human services making claims that lack scientific support and could instead undermine public health.
• The Trump administration is experiencing more pushback from the federal courts over its efforts to reduce and dismantle federal agencies, and federal workers who have been rehired under court orders report returning to uncertainty and instability within government agencies.
• The second Trump administration is signaling it plans to dismantle HIV prevention programs in the United States, including efforts that the first Trump administration started. A Texas midwife is accused of performing illegal abortions. And a Trump appointee resigns after being targeted by a Republican senator.

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

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “The Free-Living Bureaucrat,” by Michael Lewis.

Rachel Roubein: The Washington Post’s “Her Research Grant Mentioned ‘Hesitancy.’ Now Her Funding Is Gone.” by Carolyn Y. Johnson.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: KFF Health News’ “Scientists Say NIH Officials Told Them To Scrub mRNA References on Grants,” by Arthur Allen.

Jessie Hellmann: Stat’s “NIH Cancels Funding for a Landmark Diabetes Study at a Time of Focus on Chronic Disease,” by Elaine Chen.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The Wall Street Journal’s “Trump Administration Weighing Major Cuts to Funding for Domestic HIV Prevention,” by Liz Essley White, Dominique Mosbergen, and Jonathan D. Rockoff.
• The Washington Post’s “Disabled Americans Fear Losing Protections if States’ Lawsuit Succeeds,” by Amanda Morris.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Federal Health Work in Flux

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

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

Today we are joined via videoconference by Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post. 

Rachel Roubein: Hi. 

Rovner: Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet. 

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: And Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call. 

Jessie Hellmann: Hello. 

Rovner: No interview today, but, as usual, way more news than we can get to, so let us jump right in. In case you missed it, there’s a bonus podcast episode in your feed. After last week’s Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing for Dr. Mehmet Oz to head the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, my KFF Health News colleagues Stephanie Armour and Rachana Pradhan and I summarized the hearing and caught up on all the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] nomination actions. It will be the episode in your feed right before this one. 

So even without Senate-confirmed heads at — checks notes — all of the major agencies at HHS, the department does continue to make news. First, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the new HHS secretary, speaks. Last week it was measles. This week it was bird flu, which he says should be allowed to spread unchecked in chicken flocks to see which birds are resistant or immune. This feels kind of like what some people recommended during covid. Sarah, is there any science to suggest this might be a good idea? 

Karlin-Smith: No, it seems like the science actually suggests the opposite, because doctors and veterinary specialists are saying basically every time you let the infection continue to infect birds, you’re giving the virus more and more chances to mutate, which can lead to more problems down the road. The other thing is they were talking about the way we raise animals, and for food these days, there isn’t going to be a lot of genetic variation for the chickens, so it’s not like you’re going to be able to find a huge subset of them that are going to survive bird flu. 

And then the other thing I thought is really interesting is just it doesn’t seem economically to make the most sense either as well, both for the individual farmers but then for U.S. industry as a whole, because it seems like other countries will be particularly unhappy with us and even maybe put prohibitions on trading with us or those products due to the spread of bird flu. 

Rovner: Yeah, it was eyebrow-raising, let us say. Well, HHS this week also announced its first big policy effort, called Operation Stork Speed. It will press infant formula makers for more complete lists of ingredients, increase testing for heavy metals in formula, make it easier to import formula from other countries, and order more research into the health outcomes of feeding infant formula. This feels like maybe one of those things that’s not totally controversial, except for the part that the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] workers who have been monitoring the infant formula shortage were part of the big DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] layoffs. 

Roubein: I talked to some experts about this idea, and, like you said, they thought it kind of sounded good, but they basically needed more details. Like, what does it mean? Who’s going to review these ingredients? To your point, some people did say that the agency would need to staff up, and there was a neonatologist who is heading up infant formula that was hired after the 2022 shortage who was part of the probationary worker terminations. However, when the FDA rescinded the terminations of some workers, so, that doctor has been hired back. So I think that’s worth noting. 

Rovner: Yes. This is also, I guess, where we get to note that Calley Means, one of RFK Jr.’s, I guess, brain trusts in the MAHA movement, has been hired as, I guess, in an Elon Musk-like position in the White House as an adviser. But this is certainly an area where he would expect to weigh in. 

Hellmann: Yeah, I saw he’s really excited about this on Twitter, or X. There’s just been concerns in the MAHA movement, “Make America Healthy Again,” about the ingredients that are in baby formula. And the only thing is I saw that he also retweeted somebody who said that “breast is best,” and I’m just hoping that we’re not going back down that road again, because I feel like public health did a lot of work in pushing the message that formula and breast milk is good for the child, and so that’s just another angle that I’ve been thinking about on this. 

Rovner: Yes, I think this is one of those things that everybody agrees we should look at and has the potential to get really controversial at some point. While we are on the subject of the federal workforce and layoffs, federal judges and DOGE continue to play cat-and-mouse, with lots of real people’s lives and careers at stake. Various judges have ordered the reinstatement, as you mentioned, Rachel, of probationary and other workers. Although in many cases workers have been reinstated to an administrative leave status, meaning they get put back on the payroll and they get their benefits back, but they still can’t do their jobs. At least one judge has said that does not satisfy his order, and this is all changing so fast it’s basically impossible to keep up. But is it fair to say that it’s not a very stable time to be a federal worker? 

Karlin-Smith: That’s probably the nicest possible way to put it. When you talk to federal workers, everybody seems stressed and just unsure of their status. And if they do have a job, it’s often from their perspective tougher to do their job lately, and then they’re just not sure how stable it is. And many people are considering what options they have outside the federal government at this point. 

Rovner: So for those lucky federal workers who do still have jobs, the Trump administration has also ordered everyone back to offices, even if those offices aren’t equipped to accommodate them. FDA headquarters here in Maryland’s kind of been the poster child for this this week. 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, FDA is an interesting one because well before covid normalized working from home and transitioned a lot of people to working from home, FDA’s headquarters couldn’t accommodate a lot of the new growth in the agency over the years, like the tobacco part of the FDA. So it was typical that people at least worked part of their workweek at home, and FDA really found once covid gave them additional work-from-home flexibilities, they were able to recruit staff they really, really needed with specialized degrees and training who don’t live near here, and it actually turned out to be quite a benefit from them. 

And now they’re saying everybody needs to be in an office five days a week, and you have people basically cramped into conference rooms. There’s not enough parking. People are trying to review technical scientific data, and you kind of can’t hear yourself think. Or you’re a lawyer — I heard of a situation where people are basically being told, Well, if you need to do a private phone call because of the confidentiality around what you’re doing, go take the call in your car. So I think in addition to all of the concerns people have around the stability of their jobs, there’s now this element of, on a personal level, I think for many of them it’s just made their lives more challenging. And then they just feel like they’re not actually able to do, have the same level of efficiency at their work as they normally would. 

Rovner: And for those who don’t know, the FDA campus is on a former military installation in the Maryland suburbs. It’s not really near any public transportation. So you pretty much have to drive to get there. And I think that the parking lots are not that big, because, as you pointed out, Sarah, the workforce is now bigger than the headquarters was created to accommodate it. And we’re seeing this across the government. This week it happened to be FDA. You have to ask the question: Is this really just an effort to make the government not work, to make federal workers, if they can’t fire them, to make them quit? 

Hellmann: I definitely think that’s part of the underlying goal. If you see some of the stuff that Elon Musk says about the federal workforce, it’s very dismissive. He doesn’t seem to have a lot of respect for the civil servants. And they’ve been running into a lot of pushback from federal judges over many lawsuits targeting these terminations. And so I think just making conditions as frustrating as possible for some of these workers until they quit is definitely part of the strategy. 

Roubein: And I think this is overlaid with the additional buyout offers, the additional early retirement offers. There’s also the reduction-in-force plans that federal workers have been unnerved about, bracing for future layoffs. So it’s very clear that they want to shrink the size of the federal workforce. 

Rovner: Yeah, we’ve seen a lot of these people, I’ve seen interviews with them, who are being reinstated, but they’re still worried that now they’re going to be RIF-ed. They’re back on the payroll, they’re off the payroll. I mean there’s nothing — this does not feel like a very efficient way to run the federal government. 

Karlin-Smith: Right. I think that’s what a lot of people are talking about is, again, going back to offices, for many of these people, is not leading to productivity. I talked to one person who said: I’m just leaving my laptop at the office now. I’m not going to take it home and do the extra hours of work that they might’ve normally gotten from me. And that includes losing time to commute. FDA is paying for parking-garage spaces in downtown Silver Spring [Maryland] near the Metro so that they can then shuttle people to the FDA headquarters. I’ve taken buses from that Metro to FDA headquarters. In traffic, that’s a 30-minute drive. They’re spending money on things that, again, I think are not going to in the long run create any government efficiency. 

And in fact, I’ve been talking to people who are worried it’s going to do the opposite, that drug review, device review, medical product review times and things like that are going to slow. We talked about food safety. I think The New York Times had a really good story this week about concerns about losing the people. We need to make sure that baby formula is actually safe. So there’s a lot of contradictions in the messaging of what they’re trying to accomplish and how the actions actually are playing out. 

Rovner: Well, and finally, I’m going to lay one more layer on this. There’s the question of whether you can even put the toothpaste back in the tube if you wanted to. After weeks of back-and-forth, the federal judge ruled on Tuesday that the dissolution of USAID [the U.S. Agency for International Development] was illegal and probably unconstitutional, and ordered email and computer access restored for the remaining workers while blocking further cuts. But with nearly everybody fired, called back from overseas, and contracts canceled, USAID couldn’t possibly come close to doing what it did before DOGE basically took it apart, right?. 

Karlin-Smith: You hear stories of if someone already takes a new job, they’re lucky enough to find a new job, why are they going to come back? Again, even if you’re brought back, my expectation is a lot of people who have been brought back are probably looking for new jobs regardless because you don’t have that stability. And I think the USAID thing is interesting, too, because again, you have people that were working in all corners of the world and you have partnerships with other countries and contractors that have to be able to trust you moving forward. And the question is, do those countries and those organizations want to continue working with the U.S. if they can’t have that sort of trust? And as people said, the U.S. government was known as, they could pay contractors less because they always paid you. And when you take that away, that creates a lot of problems for negotiating deals to work with them moving forward. 

Rovner: And I think that’s true for federal workers, too. There’s always been the idea that you probably could earn more in the private sector than you can working for the federal government, but it’s always been a pretty stable job. And I think right now it’s anything but, so comes the question of: Are we deterring people from wanting to work for the federal government? Eventually one would assume there’s still going to be a federal government to work for, and there may not be anybody who wants to do it. 

Roubein: Yeah, you saw various hiring authorities given to try and recruit scientists and other researchers who make a lot, lot more in the public health sector, and some of those were a part of the probationary workforce because they had been hired recently under those authorities. 

Rovner: Yeah, and now this is all sort of coming apart. Well, meanwhile, the cuts are continuing even faster than federal judges can rule against them. Last week, the administration said it would reduce the number of HHS regional offices from 10 to four. Considering these are where the department’s major fraud-fighting efforts take place, that doesn’t seem a very effective way of going after fraud and abuse in programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Those regional offices are also where lots of beneficiary protections come from, like inspections of nursing homes and Head Start facilities. How does this serve RFK Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again agenda? 

Karlin-Smith: I think it’s not clear that it does, right? You’re talking about, again, the Department of Government Efficiency has focused on efficiency, cost savings, and Medicare and Medicaid does a pretty good job of fighting fraud and making HHS OIG [Office of Inspector General], all those organizations, they collect a lot of money back. So when you lose people— 

Rovner: And of course the inspector general has also been laid off in all of this. 

Karlin-Smith: Right. It’s not clear to me, I think one of the things with that whole reorganization of their chief counsel is people are suggesting, again, this is sort of a power move of HHS wanting to get a little bit more control of the legal operations at the lower agencies, whether it’s NIH [the National Institutes of Health] or FDA and so forth. But, right, it’s reducing head count without really thinking about what people’s roles actually were and what you lose when you let them go. 

Rovner: Well, the Trump administration is also continuing to cut grants and contracts that seem like they’d be the kind of things that directly relate to Make America Healthy Again. Jessie, you’ve chosen one of those as your extra credit this week. Tell us about it. 

Hellmann: Yeah. So my story is from Stat [“NIH Cancels Funding for a Landmark Diabetes Study at a Time of Focus on Chronic Disease”], and it’s about a nationwide study that tracks patients with prediabetes and diabetes. And it was housed at Columbia University, which as we know has been the subject of some criticism from the Trump administration. They had lost about $400 million in grants because the administration didn’t like Columbia’s response to some of the protests that were on campus last year. But that has an effect on some research that really doesn’t have much to do with that, including a study that looked at diabetes over a really long period of time. 

So it was able to over decades result in 200 publications about prediabetes and diabetes, and led to some of the knowledge that we have now about the interventions for that. And the latest stage was going to focus on dementia and cognitive impairment, since some of the people that they’ve been following for years are now in their older ages. And now they have to put a stop to that. They don’t even have funding to analyze blood samples that they’ve done and the brain scans that they’ve collected. So it’s just another example of how what’s being done at the administration level is contradicting some of the goals that they say that they have. 

Rovner: Yeah, and it’s important to remember that Columbia’s funding is being cut not because they deemed this particular project to be not helpful but because they are, as you said, angry at Columbia for not cracking down more on pro-Palestinian protesters after Oct. 7. 

Well, meanwhile, people are bracing for still more cuts. The Wall Street Journal is reporting the administration plans to cut domestic AIDS-HIV programming on top of the cuts to the international PEPFAR [President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] program that was hammered as part of the USAID cancellation. Is fighting AIDS and HIV just way too George W. Bush for this administration? 

Hellmann: It’s interesting because President [Donald] Trump unveiled the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative in his first term, and the goal was to end the epidemic in the United States. And so if they were talking about reducing some of that funding, or I know there were reports that maybe they would move the funding from CDC [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] to HRSA [the Health Resources and Services Administration], it’s very unclear at this point. Then it raises questions about whether it would undermine that effort. And there’s already actions that the Trump administration has done to undermine the initiative, like the attacks on trans people. They’ve canceled grants to researchers studying HIV. They have done a whole host of things. They canceled funding to HIV services organizations because they have “trans” in their programming or on their websites. So it’s already caused a lot of anxiety in this community. And yeah, it’s just a total turnaround from the first administration. 

Rovner: I know the Whitman-Walker clinic here in Washington, which has long been one of the premier AIDS-HIV clinics, had just huge layoffs. This is already happening, and as you point out, this was something that President Trump in his first term vowed to end AIDS-HIV in the U.S. So this is not one would think how one would go about that. 

Well, it’s not just the administration that’s working to constrict rights and services. A group of 17 states, led by Texas, of course, are suing to have Biden-era regulations concerning discrimination against trans people struck down, except as part of that suit, the states are asking that the entirety of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act be declared unconstitutional. Now, you may never have heard of Section 504, but it is a very big deal. It was the forerunner of the Americans With Disabilities Act, and it prevents discrimination on the basis of disability in all federally funded activities. It is literally a lifeline for millions of disabled people that enables them to live in the community rather than in institutions. Are we looking at an actual attempt to roll back basically all civil rights as part of this war on “woke” and DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] and trans people? 

Hellmann: The story is interesting, because it seems like some of the attorneys general are saying, That’s not our intent. But if you look at the court filings, it definitely seems like it is. And yeah, like you said, this is something that would just have a tremendous impact. And Medicaid coverage of home- and community-based services is one of those things that states are constantly struggling to pay for. You’re just continuing to see more and more people need these services. Some states have waiting lists, so— 

Rovner: I think most states have waiting lists. 

Hellmann: Yeah. It’s something, you have to really question what the intent is here. Even if people are saying, This isn’t our intent, it’s pretty black-and-white on paper in the court records, so— 

Rovner: Yeah, just to be clear, this was a Biden administration regulation, updating the rules for Section 504, that included reference to trans people. But in the process of trying to get that struck down, the court filings do, as you say, call for the entirety of Section 504 to be declared unconstitutional. This is obviously one of those court cases that’s still before the district court, so it’s a long way to go. But the entire disability community, certainly it has their attention. 

Well, we haven’t had any big abortion news the past couple of weeks, but that is changing. In Texas, a midwife and her associate have become the first people arrested under the state’s 2022 abortion ban. The details of the case are still pretty fuzzy, but if convicted, the midwife who reportedly worked as an OB-GYN doctor in her native Peru and served a mostly Spanish-speaking clientele, could be sentenced to up to 20 years in prison. So, obviously, be watching that one. Meanwhile, here in Washington, Hilary Perkins, a career lawyer chosen by FDA commissioner nominee Marty Makary to serve as the agency’s general counsel, resigned less than two days into her new position after complaints from Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley that she defended the Biden administration’s position on the abortion pill mifepristone. 

Now, Hilary Perkins is no liberal trying to hide out in the bureaucracy. She’s a self-described pro-life Christian conservative hired in the first Trump administration, but she was apparently forced out for the high crime of doing her job as a career lawyer. Is this administration really going to try to evict anyone who ever supported a Biden position? Will that leave anybody left? 

Roubein: I think what’s notable is Sen. Josh Hawley here, who expressed concerns and I had heard expressed concerns to the White House, and the post on X from the FDA came an hour before the hearing. There were concerns that he was not going to make it out of committee and— 

Rovner: Before the Marty Makary hearing. 

Roubein: Yes, sorry, before the vote in the HELP [Health, Education, Labor and Pensions] Committee on Marty Makary. And Hawley said because of that, he would vote to support him. What was interesting is two Democrats actually ended up supporting him, so he could have passed without Hawley’s vote. But I think in general it poses a test for Marty Makary when he’s an FDA commissioner, and how and whether he’s going to get his people in and how he’ll respond to different pressure points in Congress and with HHS and with the White House. 

Rovner: And of course, Hawley’s not a disinterested bystander here, right? 

Karlin-Smith: So his wife was one of the key attorneys in the recent big Supreme Court case that was pushed down to the lower courts for a lack of standing, but she was trying to essentially get tighter controls on the abortion pill mifepristone. But it seems like almost maybe Hawley jumped too soon before doing all of his research or fully understanding the role of people at Justice. Because even before this whole controversy erupted, I had talked to people the day before about this and asked them, “Should we read into this, her being involved in this?” And everybody I talked to, including, I think, a lot of people that have different views than Perkins does on the case, that they were saying she was in a role as a career attorney. You do what your boss, what the administration, wants. 

If you really, really had a big moral problem with that, you can quit your job. But it’s perfectly normal for an attorney in that kind of position to defend a client’s interest and then have another client and maybe have to defend them wrongly. So it seems like if they had just maybe even picked up the phone and had a conversation with her, the whole crisis could have been averted. And she was on CNN yesterday trying to plead her case and, again, emphasize her positions because perhaps she’s worried about her future career prospects, I guess, over this debacle. 

Rovner: Yeah, now she’s going to be blackballed by both sides for having done her job, basically. Anyway, all right, well, one big Biden initiative that looks like it will continue is the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation program. And we think we know this because CMS announced last week that the makers of all of the 15 drugs selected for the second round of negotiations have agreed to, well, negotiate. Sarah, this is news, right? Because we were wondering whether this was really going to go forward. 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, they’ve made some other signals since taking over that they were going to keep going with this, including last week at his confirmation hearing, Dr. Oz, for CMS, also indicated he seemed like he would uphold that law and they were looking for ways to lower drug costs. So I think what people are going to be watching for is whether they yield around the edges in terms of tweaks the industry wants to the law, or is there something about the prices they actually negotiate that signal they’re not really trying to get them as low as they can go? But this seems to be one populist issue for Trump that he wants to keep leaning into and keep the same consistency, I think, from his first administration, where he always took a pretty hard line on the drug industry and drug pricing. 

Rovner: And I know Ozempic is on that list of 15 drugs, but the administration hasn’t said yet. I assume that’s Ozempic for its original purpose in treating diabetes. This administration hasn’t said yet whether they’ll continue the Biden declaration that these drugs could be available for people for weight loss, right? 

Karlin-Smith: Correct. And I think that’s going to be more complicated because that’s so costly. So negotiating the price of drugs saves money. So yes, basically because Ozempic and Wegovy are the same drug, that price should be available regardless of the indication. But I’m more skeptical that they continue that policy, because of the cost and also just because, again, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy seems to be particularly skeptical of the drugs, or at least using that as a first line of defense, widespread use, reliance on that. He tends to, in general, I think, support other ways of medical, I guess, treatment or health treatments before turning to pharmaceuticals. 

Rovner: Eating better and exercising. 

Karlin-Smith: Correct, right. So I think that’s going to be a hard sell for them because it’s just so costly. 

Rovner: We will see. All right, that is as much news as we have time for this week. Now, it is time for our extra-credit segment, that’s where we each recognize the story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Jessie, you’ve done yours already this week. Rachel, why don’t you go next? 

Roubein: My extra credit, the headline is “Her Research Grant Mentioned ‘Hesitancy.’ Now Her Funding Is Gone.” In The Washington Post by my colleague Carolyn Y. Johnson. And I thought the story was particularly interesting because it really dove into the personal level. You hear about all these cuts from a high level, but you don’t always really know what it means and how it came about. So the backstory is the National Institutes of Health terminated dozens of research grants that focused on why some people are hesitant to accept vaccines. 

And Carolyn profiled one researcher, Nisha Acharya, but there was a twist, and the twist was she doesn’t actually study how to combat vaccine hesitancy or ways to increase vaccine uptake. Instead, she studies how well the shingles vaccine works to prevent the infection, with a focus on whether the shot also prevents the virus from affecting people’s eyes. But in the summary of her project, she had used the word “hesitancy” once and used the word “uptake” once. And so this highlights the sweeping approach to halting some of these vaccine hesitancy research grants. 

Rovner: Yeah that was like the DOD [Department of Defense] getting rid of the picture of the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the atomic bomb, because it had the word “Gay” in it. This is the downside, I guess, of using AI for these sorts of things. Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: I took a look at a KFF story by Arthur Allen, “Scientists Say NIH Officials Told Them to Scrub mRNA References on Grants,” and it’s about NIH officials urging people to remove any reference to mRNA vaccine technology from their grants. And the story indicates it’s not yet clear if that is going to translate to defunding of such research, but the implications are quite vast. I think most people probably remember the mRNA vaccine technology is really what helped many of us survive the covid pandemic and is credited with saving millions of lives, but the technology promise seems vast even beyond infectious diseases, and there’s a lot of hope for it in cancer. 

And so this has a lot of people worried. It’s not particularly surprising, I guess, because again, the anti-vaccine movement, which Kennedy has been a leader of, has been particularly skeptical of the mRNA technology. But it is problematic, I think, for research. And we spent a lot of time on this call talking about the decimation of the federal workforce that may happen here, and I think this story and some of the other things we talked about today also show how we may just decimate our entire scientific research infrastructure and workforce in the U.S. outside of just the federal government, because so much of it is funded by NIH, and the decisions they’re making are going to make it impossible for a lot of scientists to do their job. 

Rovner: Yeah, we’re also seeing scientists going to other countries, but that’s for another time. Well, my extra credit this week, probably along the same lines, also from The Washington Post. It’s part of a series called “Who Is Government?” This particular piece [“The Free-Living Bureaucrat”] is by bestselling author Michael Lewis, and it’s a sprawling — and I mean sprawling — story of how a mid-level FDA employee who wanted to help find new treatments for rare diseases ended up not only figuring out a cure for a child who was dying of a rare brain amoeba but managed to obtain the drug for the family in time to save her. It’s a really good piece, and it’s a really excellent series that tells the stories of mostly faceless bureaucrats who actually are working to try to make the country a better place. 

OK, that’s this week’s 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. Thanks as always to our producer, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, and at Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you guys these days? Sarah? 

Karlin-Smith: A little bit everywhere. X, Bluesky, LinkedIn — @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith. 

Rovner: Jessie. 

Hellmann: I’m @jessiehellmann on X and Bluesky, and I’m also on LinkedIn more these days. 

Rovner: Great. Rachel. 

Roubein: @rachelroubein at Bluesky, @rachel_roubein on X, and also on LinkedIn. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

That’s the thinking of advocates and state legislators across the country, who also see it as a way to pull in more revenue. But at virtually every turn — including in Nebraska, Colorado, Oregon and New Mexico — efforts to raise taxes on alcoholic beverages have been thwarted by the alcohol industry, a vast and powerful coalition of corporate conglomerates, mom-and-pop producers, retail stores, hospitality workers, trade associations and their lobbyists. The result is a population with mounting alcohol-related woes and an ever-cheaper, more accessible supply of drink. 

Read the rest…

Does anyone here listen to Who Weekly? They sort celebrities into “Whos” (the not-as-famous) and “Thems” (the universally-well-known). So, like: RFK is a Them, while Casey and Calley Means are Whos. The study below on sense of smell and breathing made me think: What’s the Who-to-Them ranking of the five senses? First I thought smell was the Whoiest, but my editor wisely suggested touch as the sense people most often forget. Sight is the Themiest, obviously.

(Please tell me this makes sense to someone?)

A major study on infant survival and physician race is called into question

In 2020, a high-profile study in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science found that Black infants were half as likely to survive to their first birthday when cared for by white doctors compared to Black ones. But a new analysis published in the same journal upends those results. Researchers found that the survival difference in the original study was almost entirely attributable to infants’ very low birth weights. Physician race still appears to play some role in infant survival, but not a statistically significant one.

Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…

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 2024 campaign — particularly the one for president — has been notably vague on policy. But health issues, especially those surrounding abortion and other reproductive health care, have nonetheless played a key role. And while the Affordable Care Act has not been the focus of debate the way it was over the previous three presidential campaigns, who becomes the next president will have a major impact on the fate of the 2010 health law.

The panelists for this week’s special election preview, taped before a live audience at KFF’s offices in Washington, are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Tamara Keith of NPR, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Cynthia Cox and Ashley Kirzinger of KFF.

Panelists

Ashley Kirzinger
KFF

@AshleyKirzinger

Read Ashley's bio.

Cynthia Cox
KFF

@cynthiaccox

Read Cynthia's bio.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Tamara Keith
NPR

@tamarakeithNPR

Read and listen to Tamara's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• As Election Day nears, who will emerge victorious from the presidential race is anyone’s guess. Enthusiasm among Democratic women has grown with the elevation of Vice President Kamala Harris to the top of the ticket, with more saying they are likely to turn out to vote. But broadly, polling reveals a margin-of-error race — too close to call.
• Several states have abortion measures on the ballot. Proponents of abortion rights are striving to frame the issue as nonpartisan, acknowledging that recent measures have passed thanks in part to Republican support. For some voters, resisting government control of women’s health is a conservative value. Many are willing to split their votes, supporting both an abortion rights measure and also candidates who oppose abortion rights.
• While policy debates have been noticeably lacking from this presidential election, the future of Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act hinges on its outcome. Republicans want to undermine the federal funding behind Medicaid expansion, and former President Donald Trump has a record of opposition to the ACA. Potentially on the chopping block are the federal subsidies expiring next year that have transformed the ACA by boosting enrollment and lowering premium costs.
• And as misinformation and disinformation proliferate, one area of concern is the “malleable middle”: people who are uncertain of whom or what to trust and therefore especially susceptible to misleading or downright false information. Could a second Trump administration embed misinformation in federal policy? The push to soften or even eliminate school vaccination mandates shows the public health consequences of falsehood creep.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “Resistance to Public Health, No Longer Fringe, Gains Foothold in G.O.P. Politics,” by Sheryl Gay Stolberg.
• KFF Health News’ “‘What the Health?’: SCOTUS Ruling Strips Power From Federal Health Agencies.”
• KFF’s Health Misinformation and Trust Initiative, a program aimed at tracking health misinformation in the U.S., analyzing its impact on the American people, and mobilizing media to address the problem.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: LIVE From KFF: Health Care and the 2024 Election

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

Emmarie Huetteman: Please put your hands together and join me in welcoming our panel and our host, Julie Rovner. 

Julie Rovner: Hello, good morning, 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 very best and smartest health reporters in Washington, along with some very special guests today. We’re taping this special election episode on Thursday, October 17th, at 11:30 a.m., in front of a live audience at the Barbara Jordan Conference Center here at KFF in downtown D.C. Say hi, audience. 

As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

So I am super lucky to work at and have worked at some pretty great places and with some pretty great, smart people. And when I started to think about who I wanted to help us break down what this year’s elections might mean for health policy, it was pretty easy to assemble an all-star cast. So first, my former colleague from NPR, senior White House correspondent Tamara Keith. Tam, thanks for joining us. 

Tamara Keith: Thank you for having me. 

Rovner: Next, our regular “What the Health?” podcast panelist and my right hand all year on reproductive health issues, Alice Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hi Julie. 

Rovner: Finally, two of my incredible KFF colleagues. Cynthia Cox is a KFF vice president and director of the program on the ACA [Affordable Care Act] and one of the nation’s very top experts on what we know as Obamacare. Thank you, Cynthia. 

Cynthia Cox: Great to be here. 

Rovner: And finally, Ashley Kirzinger is director of survey methodology and associate director of our KFF Public Opinion and Survey Research Program, and my favorite explainer of all things polling. 

Ashley Kirzinger: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So, welcome to all of you. Thanks again for being here. We’re going to chat amongst ourselves for a half hour or so, and then we will open the floor to questions. So be ready here in the room. Tam, I want to start with the big picture. What’s the state of the race as of October 17th, both for president and for Congress? 

Keith: Well, let’s start with the race for President. That’s what I cover most closely. This is what you would call a margin-of-error race, and it has been a margin-of-error race pretty much the entire time, despite some really dramatic events, like a whole new candidate and two assassination attempts and things that we don’t expect to see in our lifetimes and yet they’ve happened. And yet it is an incredibly close race. What I would say is that at this exact moment, there seems to have been a slight shift in the average of polls in the direction of former President [Donald] Trump. He is in a slightly better position than he was before and is in a somewhat more comfortable position than Vice President [Kamala] Harris. 

She has been running as an underdog the whole time, though there was a time where she didn’t feel like an underdog, and right now she is also running like an underdog and the vibes have shifted, if you will. There’s been a more dramatic shift in the vibes than there has been in the polls. And the thing that we don’t know and we won’t know until Election Day is in 2016 and 2020, the polls underestimated Trump’s support. So at this moment, Harris looks to be in a weaker position against Trump than either [Hillary] Clinton or [Joe] Biden looked to be. It turns out that the polls were underestimating Trump both of those years. But in 2022 after the Dobbs decision, the polls overestimated Republican support and underestimated Democratic support. 

So what’s happening now? We don’t know. So there you go. That is my overview, I think, of the presidential race. The campaigning has really intensified in the last week or so, like really intensified, and it’s only going to get more intense. I think Harris has gotten a bit darker in her language and descriptions. The joyful warrior has been replaced somewhat by the person warning of dire consequences for democracy. And in terms of the House and the Senate, which will matter a lot, a lot a lot, whether Trump wins or Harris wins, if Harris wins and Democrats lose the Senate, Harris may not even be able to get Cabinet members confirmed. 

So it matters a lot, and the conventional wisdom — which is as useful as it is and sometimes is not all that useful — the conventional wisdom is that something kind of unusual could happen, which is that the House could flip to Democrats and the Senate could flip to Republicans, and usually these things don’t move in opposite directions in the same year. 

Rovner: And usually the presidential candidate has coattails, but we’re not really seeing that either, are we? 

Keith: Right. In fact, it’s the reverse. Several of the Senate candidates in key swing states, the Democratic candidates are polling much better than the Republican candidates in those races and polling with greater strength than Harris has in those states. Is this a polling error, or is this the return of split-ticket voting? I don’t know. 

Rovner: Well, leads us to our polling expert. Ashley, what are the latest polls telling us, and what should we keep in mind about the limitations of polling? I feel like every year people depend a lot on the polls and every year we say, Don’t depend too much on the polls. 

Kirzinger: Well, can I just steal Tamara’s line and say I don’t know? So in really close elections, when turnout is going to matter a lot, what the polls are really good at is telling us what is motivating voters to turn out and why. And so what the polls have been telling us for a while is that the economy is top of mind for voters. Now, health care costs — we’re at KFF. So health care plays a big role in how people think about the economy, in really two big ways. The first is unexpected costs. So unexpected medical bills, health care costs, are topping the list of the public’s financial worries, things that they’re worried about, what might happen to them or their family members. And putting off care. What we’re seeing is about a quarter of the public these days are putting off care because they say they can’t afford the cost of getting that needed care. 

So that really shows the way that the financial burdens are playing heavily on the electorate. What we have seen in recent polling is Harris is doing better on the household expenses than Biden did and is better than the Democratic Party largely. And that’s really important, especially among Black women and Latina voters. We are seeing some movement among those two groups of the electorate saying that Harris is doing a better job and they trust her more on those issues. But historically, if the election is about the economy, Republican candidates do better. The party does better on economic issues among the electorate. 

What we haven’t mentioned yet is abortion, and this is the first presidential election since post-Dobbs, in the post-Dobbs era, and we don’t know how abortion policy will play in a presidential election. It hasn’t happened before, so that’s something that we’re also keeping an eye on. We know that Harris is campaigning around reproductive rights, is working among a key group of the electorate, especially younger women voters. She is seen as a genuine candidate who can talk about these issues and an advocate for reproductive rights. We’re seeing abortion rise in importance as a voting issue among young women voters, and she’s seen as more authentic on this issue than Biden was. 

Rovner: Talk about last week’s poll about young women voters. 

Kirzinger: Yeah, one of the great things that we can do in polling is, when we see big changes in the campaign, is we can go back to our polls and respondents and ask how things have changed to them. So we worked on a poll of women voters back in June. Lots have changed since June, so we went back to them in September to see how things were changing for this one group, right? So we went back to the same people and we saw increased motivation to turn out, especially among Democratic women. Republican women were about the same level of motivation. They’re more enthusiastic and satisfied about their candidate, and they’re more likely to say abortion is a major reason why they’re going to be turning out. But we still don’t know how that will play across the electorate in all the states. 

Because for most voters, a candidate’s stance on abortion policy is just one of many factors that they’re weighing when it comes to turnout. And so those are one of the things that we’re looking at as well. I will say that I’m not a forecaster, thank goodness. I’m a pollster, and polls are not good at forecasts, right? So polls are very good at giving a snapshot of the electorate at a moment in time. So two weeks out, that’s what I know from the polls. What will happen in the next two weeks, I’m not sure. 

Rovner: Well, Alice, just to pick up on that, abortion, reproductive health writ large are by far the biggest health issues in this campaign. What impact is it having on the presidential race and the congressional races and the ballot issues? It’s all kind of a clutter, isn’t it? 

Ollstein: Yeah, well, I just really want to stress what Ashley said about this being uncharted territory. So we can gather some clues from the past few years where we’ve seen these abortion rights ballot measures win decisively in very red states, in very blue states, in very purple states. But presidential election years just have a different electorate. And so, yes, it did motivate more people to turn out in those midterm and off-year elections, but that’s just not the same group of folks and it’s not the same groups the candidates need this time, necessarily. And also we know that every time abortion has been on the ballot, it has won, but the impact and how that spills over into partisan races has been a real mixed bag. 

So we saw in Michigan in 2022, it really helped Democrats. It helped Governor Gretchen Whitmer. It helped Michigan Democrats take back control of the Statehouse for the first time in decades. But that didn’t work for Democrats in all states. My colleagues and I did an analysis of a bunch of different states that had these ballot measures, and these ballot measures largely succeeded because of Republican voters who voted for the ballot initiative and voted for Republican candidates. And that might seem contradictory. You’re voting for an abortion rights measure, and you’re voting for very anti-abortion candidates. We saw that in Kentucky, for example, where a lot of people voted for (Sen.) Rand Paul, who is very anti-abortion, and for the abortion rights side of the ballot measure. 

I’ve been on the road the last few months, and I think you’re going to see a lot of that again. I just got back from Arizona, and a lot of people are planning to vote for the abortion rights measure there and for candidates who have a record of opposing abortion rights. Part of that is Donald Trump’s somewhat recent line of: I won’t do any kind of national ban. I’ll leave it to the states. A lot of people are believing that, even though Democrats are like: Don’t believe him. It’s not true. But also, like Ashley said, folks are just prioritizing other issues. And so, yes, when you look at certain slices of the electorate, like young women, abortion is a top motivating issue. But when you look at the entire electorate, it’s, like, a distant fourth after the economy and immigration and several other things. 

I found the KFF polling really illuminating in that, yes, most people said that abortion is either just one of many factors in deciding their vote on the candidates or not a factor at all. And most people said that they would be willing to vote for a candidate who does not share their views on abortion. So I think that’s really key here. And these abortion rights ballot measures, the campaigns behind them are being really deliberate about remaining completely nonpartisan. They need to appeal to Republicans, Democrats, independents in order to pass, but that also … So their motivation is to appeal to everyone. Democrats’ motivation is to say: You have to vote for us, too. Abortion rights won’t be protected if you just pass the ballot measure. You also have to vote for Democrats up and down the ballot. Because, they argue, Trump could pursue a national ban that would override the state protections. 

Rovner: We’ve seen in the past — and this is for both of you — ballot measures as part of partisan strategies. In the early 2000s, there were anti-gay-marriage ballot measures that were intended to pull out Republicans, that were intended to drive turnout. That’s not exactly what’s happening this time, is it? 

Keith: So I was a reporter in the great state of Ohio in 2004, and there was an anti-gay-rights ballot measure on the ballot there, and it was a key part of George W. Bush’s reelection plan. And it worked. He won the state somewhat narrowly. We didn’t get the results until 5 a.m. the next day, but that’s better than we’ll likely have this time. And that was a critical part of driving Republican turnout. It’s remarkable how much has changed since then in terms of public views. It wouldn’t work in the same way this time. 

The interesting thing in Arizona, for instance, is that there’s also an anti-immigration ballot measure that’s also polling really well that was added by the legislature in sort of a rush to try to offset the expected Democratic-based turnout because of the abortion measure. But as you say, it is entirely possible that there could be a lot of Trump abortion, immigration and [House Democrat and Senate candidate] Ruben Gallego voters. 

Ollstein: Absolutely. And I met some of those voters, and one woman told me, look, she gets offended when people assume that she’s liberal because she identified as pro-choice. We don’t use that terminology in our reporting, but she identified as pro-choice, and she was saying: Look, to me, this is a very conservative value. I don’t want the government in my personal business. I believe in privacy. And so for her, that doesn’t translate over into, And therefore I am a Democrat. 

Rovner: I covered two abortion-related ballot measures in South Dakota that were two years, I think it was 2006 and 2008. 

Ollstein: They have another one this year. 

Rovner: Right. There is another one this year. But what was interesting, what I discovered in 2006 and 2008 is exactly what you were saying, that there’s a libertarian streak, particularly in the West, of people who vote Republican but who don’t believe that the government has any sort of business in your personal life, not just on abortion but on any number of other things, including guns. So this is one of those issues where there’s sort of a lot of distinction. Cynthia, this is the first time in however many elections the Affordable Care Act has not been a huge issue, but there’s an awful lot at stake for this law, depending on who gets elected, right? 

Cox: Yeah, that’s right. I mean, it’s the first time in recent memory that health care in general, aside from abortion, hasn’t really been the main topic of conversation in the race. And part of that is that the Affordable Care Act has really transformed the American health care system over the last decade or so. The uninsured rate is at a record low, and the ACA marketplaces, which had been really struggling 10 years ago, have started to not just survive but thrive. Maybe also less to dislike about the ACA, but it’s also not as much a policy election as previous elections had been. But yes, the future of the ACA still hinges on this election. 

So starting with President Trump, I think as anyone who follows health policy knows, or even politics or just turned on the TV in 2016 knows that Trump has a very, very clear history of opposing the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. He supported a number of efforts in Congress to try to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. And when those weren’t successful, he took a number of regulatory steps, joined legal challenges, and proposed in his budgets to slash funding for the Affordable Care Act and for Medicaid. But now in 2024, it’s a little bit less clear exactly where he’s going. 

I would say earlier in the 2024 presidential cycle, he made some very clear comments about saying Obamacare sucks, for example, or that Republicans should never give up on trying to repeal and replace the ACA, that the failure to do so when he was president was a low point for the party. But then he also has seemed to kind of walk that back a little bit. Now he’s saying that he would replace the ACA with something better or that he would make the ACA itself much, much better or make it cost less, but he’s not providing specifics. Of course, in the debate, he famously said that he had “concepts” of a plan, but there’s no … Nothing really specific has materialized. 

Rovner: We haven’t seen any of those concepts. 

Cox: Yes, the concept is … But we can look at his record. And so we do know that he has a very, very clear record of opposing the ACA and really taking any steps he could when he was president to try to, if not repeal and replace it, then significantly weaken it or roll it back. Harris, by contrast, is in favor of the Affordable Care Act. When she was a primary candidate in 2020, she had expressed support for more-progressive reforms like “Medicare for All” or “Medicare for More.” But since becoming vice president, especially now as the presidential candidate, she’s taken a more incremental approach. 

She’s talking about building upon the Affordable Care Act. In particular, a key aspect of her record and Biden’s is these enhanced subsidies that exist in the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. They were first, I think … They really closely mirror what Biden had run on as president in 2019, 2020, but they were passed as part of covid relief. So they were temporary, then they were extended as part of the Inflation Reduction Act but, again, temporarily. And so they’re set to expire next year, which is setting up a political showdown of sorts for Republicans and Democrats on the Hill about whether or not to extend them. And Harris would like to make these subsidies permanent because they have been responsible for really transforming the ACA marketplaces. 

The number of people signing up for coverage has doubled since Biden took office. Premium payments were cut almost in half. And so this is, I think, a key part of, now, her record, but also what she wants to see go forward. But it’s going to be an uphill battle, I think, to extend them. 

Rovner: Cynthia, to sort of build on that a little bit, as we mentioned earlier, a Democratic president won’t be able to get a lot accomplished with a Republican House and/or Senate and a Republican president won’t be able to get that much done with a Democratic House and/or Senate. What are some of the things we might expect to see if either side wins a trifecta control of the executive branch and both houses of Congress? 

Cox: So I think, there … So I guess I’ll start with Republicans. So if there is a trifecta, the key thing there to keep in mind is while there may not be a lot of appetite in Congress to try to repeal and replace the ACA, since that wasn’t really a winning issue in 2017, and since then public support for the ACA has grown. And I think also it’s worth noting that the individual mandate penalty being reduced to $0. So essentially there’s no individual mandate anymore. There’s less to hate about the law. 

Rovner: All the pay-fors are gone, too. 

Cox: Yeah the pay-fors are gone, too. 

Rovner: So the lobbyists have less to hate. 

Cox: Yes, that too. And so I don’t think there’s a ton of appetite for this, even though Trump has been saying, still, some negative comments about the ACA. That being said, if Republicans want to pass tax cuts, then they need to find savings somewhere. And so that could be any number of places, but I think it’s likely that certain health programs and other programs are off-limits. So Medicare probably wouldn’t be touched, maybe Social Security, defense, but that leaves Medicaid and the ACA subsidies. 

And so if they need savings in order to pass tax cuts, then I do think in particular Medicaid is at risk, not just rolling back the ACA’s Medicaid expansion but also likely block-granting the program or implementing per capita caps or some other form of really restricting the amount of federal dollars that are going towards Medicaid. 

Rovner: And this is kind of where we get into the Project 2025 that we’ve talked about a lot on the podcast over the course of this year, that, of course, Donald Trump has disavowed. But apparently [Senate Republican and vice presidential candidate] JD Vance has not, because he keeps mentioning pieces of it. 

Ollstein: And they’re only … They’re just one of several groups that have pitched deep cuts to health safety net programs, including Medicaid. You also have the Paragon group, where a lot of former Trump officials are putting forward health policy pitches and several others. And so I also think given the uncertainty about a trifecta, it’s also worth keeping in mind what they could do through waivers and executive actions in terms of work requirements. 

Rovner: That was my next question. I’ve had trouble explaining this. I’ve done a bunch of interviews in the last couple of weeks to explain how much more power Donald Trump would have, if he was reelected, to do things via the executive branch than a President Harris would have. So I have not come up with a good way to explain that. Please, one of you give it a shot. 

Keith: Someone else. 

Rovner: Why is it that President Trump could probably do a lot more with his executive power than a President Harris could do with hers? 

Cox: I think we can look back at the last few years and just see. What did Trump do with his executive power? What did Biden do with his executive power? And as far as the Affordable Care Act is concerned or Medicaid. But Trump, after the failure to repeal and replace the ACA, took a number of regulatory steps. For example, trying to expand short-term plans, which are not ACA-compliant, and therefore can discriminate against people with preexisting conditions, or cutting funding for certain things in the ACA, including outreach and enrollment assistance. 

And so I think there were a number — and also we’ve talked about Medicaid work requirements in the form of state waivers. And a lot of what Biden did, regulatory actions, were just rolling that back, changing that, but it’s hard to expand coverage or to provide a new program without Congress acting to authorize that spending. 

Kirzinger: I think it’s also really important to think about the public’s view of the ACA at this point in time. I mean, what the polls aren’t mixed about is that the ACA has higher favorability than Harris, Biden, Trump, any politician, right? So we have about two-thirds of the public. 

Rovner: So Nancy Pelosi was right. 

Kirzinger: I won’t go that far, but about two-thirds of the public’s now view the law favorably, and the provisions are even more popular. So while, yes, a Republican trifecta will have a lot of power, the public — they’re going to have a hard time rolling back protections for people with preexisting conditions, which have bipartisan support. They’re going to have a hard time making it no longer available for adult children under the age of 26 to be on their parents’ health insurance. All of those components of the ACA are really popular, and once people are given protections, it’s really hard to take them away. 

Cox: Although I would say that there are at least 10 ways the ACA protects people with preexisting conditions. I think on the surface it’s easy to say that you would protect people with preexisting conditions if you say that a health insurer has to offer coverage to someone with a preexisting condition. But there’s all those other ways that they say also protects preexisting conditions, and it makes coverage more comprehensive, which makes coverage more expensive. 

And so that’s why the subsidies there are key to make comprehensive coverage that protects people with preexisting conditions affordable to individuals. But if you take those subsidies away, then that coverage is out of reach for most people. 

Rovner: That’s also what JD Vance was talking about with changing risk pools. I mean, which most people, it makes your eyes glaze over, but that would be super important to the affordability of insurance, right? 

Cox: And his comment about risk pools is — I think a lot of people were trying to read something into that because it was pretty vague. But what a lot of people did think about when he made that comment was that before the Affordable Care Act, it used to be that if you were declined health insurance coverage, especially by multiple insurance companies, if you were basically uninsurable, then you could apply to what existed in many states was a high-risk pool. 

But the problem was that these high-risk pools were consistently underfunded. And in most of those high-risk pools, there were even waiting periods or exclusions on coverage for preexisting conditions or very high premiums or deductibles. So even though these were theoretically an option for coverage for people with preexisting conditions before the ACA, the lack of funding or support made it such that that coverage didn’t work very well for people who were sick. 

Ollstein: And something conservatives really want to do if they gain power is go after the Medicaid expansion. They’ve sort of set up this dichotomy of sort of the deserving and undeserving. They don’t say it in those words, but they argue that childless adults who are able-bodied don’t need this safety net the way, quote-unquote, “traditional” Medicaid enrollees do. And so they want to go after that part of the program by reducing the federal match. That’s something I would watch out for. I don’t know if they’ll be able to do that. That would require Congress, but also several states have in their laws that if the federal matches decreased, they would automatically unexpand, and that would mean coverage losses for a lot of people. That would be very politically unpopular. 

It’s worth keeping in mind that a lot of states, mainly red states, have expanded Medicaid since Republicans last tried to go after the Affordable Care Act in 2017. And so there’s just a lot more buy-in now. So it would be politically more challenging to do that. And it was already very politically challenging. They weren’t able to do it back then. 

Rovner: So I feel like one of the reasons that Trump might be able to get more done than Harris just using executive authority is the makeup of the judiciary, which has been very conservative, particularly at the Supreme Court, and we actually have some breaking news on this yesterday. Three of the states who intervened in what was originally a Texas lawsuit trying to revoke the FDA’s [Federal Drug Administration’s] approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, officially revived that lawsuit, which the Supreme Court had dismissed because the doctors who filed it initially didn’t have standing, according to the Supreme Court. 

The states want the courts to invoke the Comstock Act, an 1873 anti-vice law banning the mailing and receiving of, among other things, anything used in an abortion, to effectively ban the drug. This is one of those ways that Trump wouldn’t even have to lift a finger to bring about an abortion ban, right? I mean, he’d just have to let it happen. 

Ollstein: Right. I think so much of this election cycle has been dominated by, Would you sign a ban? And that’s just the wrong question. I mean, we’ve seen Congress unable to pass either abortion restrictions or abortion protections even when one party controls both chambers. It’s just really hard. 

Rovner: And going back 60 years. 

Ollstein: And so I think it’s way more important to look at what could happen administratively or through the courts. And so yes, lawsuits like that, that the Supreme Court punted on but didn’t totally resolve this term, could absolutely come back. A Trump administration could also direct the FDA to just unauthorize abortion pills, which are the majority of abortions that take place within the U.S. 

And so — or there’s this Comstock Act route. There’s — the Biden administration put out a memo saying, We do not think the Comstock Act applies to the mailing of abortion pills to patients. A Trump administration could put out their own memo and say, We believe the opposite. So there’s a lot that could happen. And so I really have been frustrated. All of the obsessive focus on: Would you sign a ban? Would you veto a ban? Because that is the least likely route that this would happen. 

Kirzinger: Well, and all of these court cases create an air of confusion among the public, right? And so, that also can have an effect in a way that signing a ban — I mean, if people don’t know what’s available to them in their state based on state policy or national policy. 

Ollstein: Or they’re afraid of getting arrested. 

Kirzinger: Yeah, even if it’s completely legal in their state, we’re finding that people aren’t aware of whether — what’s available to them in their state, what they can access legally or not. And so having those court cases pending creates this air of confusion among the public. 

Keith: Well, just to amplify the air of confusion, talking to Democrats who watch focus groups, they saw a lot of voters blaming President Biden for the Dobbs decision and saying: Well, why couldn’t he fix that? He’s president. At a much higher level, there is confusion about how our laws work. There’s a lot of confusion about civics, and as a result, you see blame landing in sort of unexpected places. 

Rovner: This is the vaguest presidential election I have ever covered. I’ve been doing this since 1988. We basically have both candidates refusing to answer specific questions — as a strategy, I mean, it’s not that I don’t think — I think they both would have a pretty good idea of what it is they would do, and both of them find it to their political advantage not to say. 

Keith: I think that’s absolutely right. I think that the Harris campaign, which I spend more time covering, has the view that if Trump is not going to answer questions directly and he is going to talk about “concepts” of a plan, and he’s just going to sort of, like, Well, if I was president, this wouldn’t be a problem, so I’m not going to answer your question — which is his answer to almost every question — then there’s not a lot of upside for them to get into great specifics about policy and to have think tank nerds telling them it won’t work, because there’s no upside to it. 

Cox: We’re right here. 

Panel: [Laughing] 

Rovner: So regular listeners to the podcast will know that one of my biggest personal frustrations with this campaign is the ever-increasing amount of mis- and outright disinformation in the health care realm, as we discussed at some length on last week’s podcast. You can go back and listen. This has become firmly established in public health, obviously pushed along by the divide over the covid pandemic. The New York Times last week had a pretty scary story by Sheryl Gay Stolberg — who’s working on a book about public health — about how some of these more fringe beliefs are getting embedded in the mainstream of the Republican Party. 

It used to be that we saw most of these kind of fringe, anti-science, anti-health beliefs were on the far right and on the far left, and that’s less the case. What could we be looking forward to on the public health front if Trump is returned to power, particularly with the help of anti-vaccine activist and now Trump endorser R.F.K. [Robert F. Kennedy] Jr.? 

Kirzinger: Oh, goodness to me. Well, so I’m going to talk about a group that I think is really important for us to focus on when we think about misinformation, and I call them the “malleable middle.” So it’s that group that once they hear misinformation or disinformation, they are unsure of whether that is true or false, right? So they’re stuck in this uncertainty of what to believe and who do they trust to get the right information. It used to be pre-pandemic that they would trust their government officials. 

We have seen declining trust in CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], all levels of public health officials. Who they still trust is their primary care providers. Unfortunately, the groups that are most susceptible to misinformation are also the groups that are less likely to have a primary care provider. So we’re not in a great scenario, where we have a group that is unsure of who to trust on information and doesn’t have someone to go to for good sources of information. I don’t have a solution. 

Cox: I also don’t have a solution. 

Rovner: No, I wasn’t — the question isn’t about a solution. The question is about, what can we expect? I mean, we’ve seen the sort of mis- and disinformation. Are we going to actually see it embedded in policy? I mean, we’ve mostly not, other than covid, which obviously now we see the big difference in some states where mask bans are banned and vaccine mandates are banned. Are we going to see childhood vaccines made voluntary for school? 

Ollstein: Well, there’s already a movement to massively broaden who can apply for an exception to those, and that’s already had some scary public health consequences. I mean, I think there are people who would absolutely push for that. 

Kirzinger: I think regardless of who wins the presidency, I think that the misinformation and disinformation is going to have an increasing role. Whether it makes it into policy will depend on who is in office and Congress and all of that. But I think that it is not something that’s going away, and I think we’re just going to continue to have to battle it. And that’s where I’m the most nervous. 

Keith: And when you talk about the trust for the media, those of us who are sitting here trying to get the truth out there, or to fact-check and debunk, trust for us is, like, in the basement, and it just keeps getting worse year after year after year. And the latest Gallup numbers have us worse than we were before, which is just, like, another institution that people are not turning to. We are in an era where some rando on YouTube who said they did their research is more trusted than what we publish. 

Rovner: And some of those randos on YouTube have millions of viewers, listeners. 

Keith: Yes, absolutely. 

Rovner: Subscribers, whatever you want to call them. 

Ollstein: One area where I’ve really seen this come forward, and it could definitely become part of policy in the future, is there’s just a lot of mis- and disinformation around transgender health care. There’s polling that show a lot of people believe what Trump and others have been saying, that, Oh, kids can come home from school and have a sex change operation. Which is obviously ridiculous. Everyone who has kids in school knows that they can’t even give them a Tylenol without parental permission. And it obviously doesn’t happen in a day, but people are like, Oh, well, I know it’s not happening at my school, but it’s sure happening somewhere. And that’s really resonating, and we’re already seeing a lot of legal restrictions on that front spilling. 

Rovner: All right, well, I’m going to open it up to the audience. Please wait to ask your question until you have a microphone, so the people who will be listening to the podcast will be able to hear your question. And please tell us who you are, and please make your question or question. 

Madeline: Hi, I’m Madeline. I am a grad student at the Milken Institute of Public Health at George Washington. My question is regarding polling. And I was just wondering, how has polling methodologies or tendencies to over-sample conservatives had on polls in the race? Are you seeing that as an issue or …? 

Kirzinger: OK. You know who’s less trusted than the media? It’s pollsters, but you can trust me. So I think what you’re seeing is there are now more polls than there have ever been, and I want to talk about legitimate scientific polls that are probability-based. They’re not letting people opt into taking the survey, and they’re making sure their samples are representative of the entire population that they’re surveying, whether it be the electorate or the American public, depending on that. 

I think what we have seen is that there have been some tendencies when people don’t like the poll results, they look at the makeup of that sample and say, oh, this poll’s too Democratic, or too conservative, has too many Trump voters. Or whatever it may be. That benefits no pollster to make their sample not look like the population that they’re aiming to represent. And so, yes, there are lots of really, really bad polls out there, but the ones that are legitimate and scientific are still striving to aim to make sure that it’s representative. The problem with election polls is we don’t know who the electorate’s going to be. We don’t know if Democrats are going to turn out more than Republicans. We don’t know if we’re going to see higher shares of rural voters than we saw in 2022. 

We don’t know. And so that’s where you really see the shifts in error happen. 

Keith: And if former President Trump’s — a big part of his strategy is turning out unlikely voters. 

Kirzinger: Yeah. We have no idea who they are. 

Rovner: Well, yeah, we saw in Georgia, their first day of in-person early voting, we had this huge upswell of voters, but we have no idea who any of those are, right? I mean, we don’t know what is necessarily turning them out. 

Kirzinger: Exactly. And historically, Democrats have been more likely to vote early and vote by mail, but that has really shifted since the pandemic. And so you see these day voting totals now, but that really doesn’t tell you anything at this point in the race. 

Rovner: Lots we still don’t know. Another question. 

Rae Woods: Hi there. Rae Woods. I’m with Advisory Board, which means that I work with health leaders who need to implement based on the policies and the politics and the results of the election that’s coming up. My question is, outside some of the big things that we’ve talked about so far today, are there some more specific, smaller policies or state-level dynamics that you think today’s health leaders will need to respond to in the next six months, the next eight months? What do health leaders need to be focused on right now based on what could change most quickly? 

Ollstein: Something I’ve been trying to shine a light on are state Supreme Courts, which the makeup of them could change dramatically this November. States have all kinds of different ways to … Some elect them on a partisan basis. Some elect them on a nonpartisan basis. Some have appointments by the governor, but then they have to run in these retention elections. But they are going to just have so much power over … I mean, I am most focused on how it can impact abortion rights, but they just have so much power on so many things. 

And given the high likelihood of divided federal government, I think just a ton of health policy is going to happen at the state level. And so I would say the electorate often overlooks those races. There’s a huge drop-off. A lot of people just vote the top of the ticket and then just leave those races blank. But yes, I think we should all be paying more attention to state Supreme Court races. 

Rovner: I think the other thing that we didn’t, that nobody mentioned we were talking about, what the next president could do, is the impact of the change to the regulatory environment and what the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Chevron is going to have on the next president. And we did a whole episode on this, so I can link back to that for those who don’t know. But basically, the Supreme Court has made it more difficult for whoever becomes president next time to change rules via their executive authority, and put more onus back on Congress. And we will see how that all plays out, but I think that’s going to be really important next year. 

Natalie Bercutt: Hi. My name is Natalie Bercutt. I’m also a master’s student at George Washington. I study health policy. I wanted to know a little bit more about, obviously, abortion rights, a huge issue on the ballot in this election, but a little bit more about IVF [in vitro fertilization], which I feel like has kind of come to the forefront a little bit more, both in state races but also candidates making comments on a national level, especially folks who have been out in the field and interacting with voters. Is that something that more people are coming out to the ballot for, or people who are maybe voting split ticket but in support of IVF, but for Republican candidate? 

Ollstein: That’s been fascinating. And so most folks know that this really exploded into the public consciousness earlier this year when the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are people legally under the state’s abortion ban. And that disrupted IVF services temporarily until the state legislature swooped in. So Democrats’ argument is that because of these anti-abortion laws in lots of different states that were made possible by the Dobbs decision, lots of states could become the next Alabama. Republicans are saying: Oh, that’s ridiculous. Alabama was solved, and no other state’s going to do it. But they could. 

Rovner: Alabama could become the next Alabama. 

Ollstein: Alabama could certainly become the next Alabama. Buy tons of states have very similar language in their laws that would make that possible. Even as you see a lot of Republicans right now saying: Oh, Republicans are … We’re pro-IVF. We’re pro-family. We’re pro-babies. There are a lot of divisions on the right around IVF, including some who do want to prohibit it and others who want to restrict the way it’s most commonly practiced in the U.S., where excess embryos are created and only the most viable ones are implanted and the others are discarded. 

And so I think this will continue to be a huge fight. A lot of activists in the anti-abortion movement are really upset about how Republican candidates and officials have rushed to defend IVF and promised not to do anything to restrict it. And so I think that’s going to continue to be a huge fight no matter what happens. 

Rovner: Tam, are you seeing discussion about the threats to contraception? I know this is something that Democratic candidates are pushing, and Republican candidates are saying, Oh, no, that’s silly. 

Keith: Yeah, I think Democratic candidates are certainly talking about it. I think that because of that IVF situation in Alabama, because of concerns that it could move to contraception, I think Democrats have been able to talk about reproductive health care in a more expansive way and in a way that is perhaps more comfortable than just talking about abortion, in a way that’s more comfortable to voters that they’re talking to back when Joe Biden was running for president. Immediately when Dobbs happened, he was like, And this could affect contraception and it could affect gay rights. And Biden seemed much more comfortable in that realm. And so— 

Rovner: Yeah, Biden, who waited, I think it was a year and a half, before he said the word “abortion.” 

Keith: To say the word “abortion.” Yes. 

Rovner: There was a website: Has Biden Said Abortion Yet? 

Keith: Essentially what I’m saying is that there is this more expansive conversation about reproductive health care and reproductive freedom than there had been when Roe was in place and it was really just a debate about abortion. 

Rovner: Ashley, do people, particularly women voters, perceive that there’s a real threat to contraception? 

Kirzinger: I think what Tamara was saying about when Biden was the candidate, I do think that that was part of the larger conversation, that larger threat. And so they were more worried about IVF and contraception access during that. When you ask voters whether they’re worried about this, they’re not as worried, but they do give the Democratic Party and Harris a much stronger advantage on these issues. And so if you were to be motivated by that, you would be motivated to vote for Harris, but it really isn’t resonating with women voters and the way now that abortion, abortion access is resonating for them. 

Rovner: Basically, it won’t be resonating until they take it away. 

Kirzinger: Exactly. If, I think, the Alabama Supreme Court ruling happened yesterday, I think it would be a much bigger issue in the campaign, but all of this is timing. 

Ollstein: Well, and people really talked about a believability gap around the Dobbs decision, even though the activists who were following it closely were screaming that Roe is toast, from the moment the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and especially after they heard the case and people heard the tone of the arguments. And then of course the decision leaked, and even then there was a believability gap. And until it was actually gone, a lot of people just didn’t think that was possible. And I think you’re seeing that again around the idea of a national ban, and you’re seeing it around the idea of restrictions on contraception and IVF. There’s still this believability gap despite the evidence we’ve seen. 

Rovner: All right. I think we have time for one more question. 

Meg: Hi, my name’s Meg. I’m a freelance writer, and I wanted to ask you about something I’m not hearing about this election cycle, and that’s guns. Where do shootings and school shootings and gun violence fit into this conversation? 

Keith: I think that we have heard a fair bit about guns. It’s part of a laundry list, I guess you could say. In the Kamala Harris stump speech, she talks about freedom. She talks about reproductive freedom. She talks about freedom from being shot, going to the grocery store or at school. That’s where it fits into her stump speech. And certainly in terms of Trump, he is very pro–Second Amendment and has at times commented on the school shootings in ways that come across as insensitive. But for his base — and he is only running for his base — for his base, being very strongly pro–Second Amendment is critical. And I think there was even a question maybe in the Univision town hall yesterday to him about guns. 

It is not the issue in this campaign, but it is certainly an issue if we talk about how much politics have changed in a relatively short period of time. To have a Democratic nominee leaning in on restrictions on guns is a pretty big shift. When Hillary Clinton did it, it was like: Oh, gosh. She’s going there. She lost. I don’t think that’s why she lost, but certainly the NRA [National Rifle Association] spent a lot of money to help her lose. Biden, obviously an author of the assault weapons ban, was very much in that realm, and Harris has continued moving in that direction along with him, though also hilariously saying she has a Glock and she’d be willing to use it 

Ollstein: And emphasizing [Minnesota governor and Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim] Walz’s hunting. 

Keith: Oh, look, Tim Walz, he’s pheasant hunting this weekend. 

Rovner: And unlike John Kerry, he looked like he’d done it before. John Kerry rather famously went out hunting and clearly had not. 

Keith: I was at a rally in 2004 where John Kerry was wearing the jacket, the barn jacket, and the senator, the Democratic senator from Ohio hands him a shotgun, and he’s like … Ehh. 

Kirzinger: I was taken aback when Harris said that she had a Glock. I thought that was a very interesting response for a Democratic presidential candidate. I do think it is maybe part of her appeal to independent voters that, As a gun owner, I support Second Amendment rights, but with limitations. And I do think that that part of appeal, it could work for a more moderate voting block on gun rights. 

Rovner: We haven’t seen this sort of responsible gun owner faction in a long time. I mean, that was the origin of the NRA. 

Keith: But then more recently, Giffords has really taken on that mantle as, We own guns, but we want controls. 

Rovner: All right, well, I could go on for a while, but this is all the time we have. I want to thank you all for coming and helping me celebrate my birthday being a health nerd, because that’s what I do. We do have cake for those of you in the room. For those of you out in podcast land, as always, if you enjoy the podcast, you could subscribe wherever you get your podcast. 

We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our live-show coordinator extraordinaire, Stephanie Stapleton, and our entire live-show team. Thanks a lot. This takes a lot more work than you realize. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth, all one word, @KFF.org, or you can still find me. I’m at X at @jrovner. Tam, where are you on social media? 

Keith: I’m @tamarakeithNPR. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein. 

Rovner: Cynthia. 

Cox: @cynthiaccox. 

Rovner: Ashley. 

Kirzinger: @AshleyKirzinger. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

As part of a media blitz aimed at women voters, Vice President Kamala Harris this week rolled out a plan for Medicare to provide in-home long-term care services. It’s popular, particularly for families struggling to care for both young children and older relatives, but its enormous expense has prevented similar plans from being implemented for decades.

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden called out former President Donald Trump by name for having “led the onslaught of lies” about the federal efforts to help people affected by hurricanes Helene and Milton. Even some Republican officials say the misinformation about hurricane relief efforts is threatening public health.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, and Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins schools of public health and nursing and Politico.

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

Read Jessie's stories.

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories.

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefalil

Read Shefali's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Vice President Kamala Harris’ plan to expand Medicare to cover more long-term care is popular but not new, and in the past has proved prohibitively expensive.
• Former President Donald Trump has abandoned support for a drug price policy he pursued during his first term. The idea, which would lower drug prices in the U.S. to their levels in other industrialized countries, is vehemently opposed by the drug industry, raising the question of whether Trump is softening his hard line on the issue.
• Abortion continues to be the biggest health policy issue of 2024, as Republican candidates — in what seems to be a replay of 2022 — try to distance themselves from their support of abortion bans and other limits. Voters continue to favor reproductive rights, which creates a brand problem for the GOP. Trump’s going back and forth on his abortion positions is an exception to the tack other candidates have taken.
• The Supreme Court returned from its summer break and immediately declined to hear two abortion-related cases. One case pits Texas’ near-total abortion ban against a federal law that requires emergency abortions to be performed in certain cases. The other challenges a ruling earlier this year from the Alabama Supreme Court finding that embryos frozen for in vitro fertilization have the same legal rights as born humans.
• The 2024 KFF annual employer health benefits survey, released this week, showed a roughly 7% increase in premiums, with average family premiums now topping $25,000 per year. And that’s with most employers not covering two popular but expensive medical interventions: GLP-1 drugs for weight loss and IVF.

Also this week, excerpts from a KFF lunch with “Shark Tank” panelist and generic drug discounter Mark Cuban, who has been consulting with the Harris campaign about health care issues.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “A Boy’s Bicycling Death Haunts a Black Neighborhood. 35 Years Later, There’s Still No Sidewalk,” by Renuka Rayasam and Fred Clasen-Kelly.

Shefali Luthra: The 19th’s “Arizona’s Ballot Measure Could Shift the Narrative on Latinas and Abortion,” by Mel Leonor Barclay.

Jessie Hellmann: The Assembly’s “Helene Left Some NC Elder-Care Homes Without Power,” by Carli Brosseau.

Joanne Kenen: The New York Times’ “Her Face Was Unrecognizable After an Explosion. A Placenta Restored It,” by Kate Morgan.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “Biden Accuses Trump of ‘Outright Lies’ About Hurricane Response,” by Michael D. Shear.
• The Miami Herald’s “Florida Threatens To Prosecute TV Stations Over Abortion Ad. FCC Head Calls It ‘Dangerous,’” by Claire Healy and Ana Ceballos.
• KFF’s “2024 Employer Health Benefits Survey.”

Click to open the Transcript

Transcript: Yet Another Promise for Long-Term Care Coverage

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

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

Today we are joined via teleconference by Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Rovner: Jesse Hellmann of CQ Roll Call. 

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have some excerpts from the Newsmaker lunch we had here at KFF this week with Mark Cuban — “Shark Tank” star, part-owner of the Dallas Mavericks NBA team, and, for the purposes of our discussion, co-founder of the industry-disrupting pharmaceutical company Cost Plus Drugs. But first, this week’s news. 

We’re going to start this week with Vice President [Kamala] Harris, who’s been making the media rounds on women-focused podcasts and TV shows like “The View.” To go along with that, she’s released a proposal to expand Medicare to include home-based long-term care, to be paid for in part by expanding the number of drugs whose price Medicare can negotiate. Sounds simple and really popular. Why has no one else ever proposed something like that? she asks, knowing full well the answer. Joanne, tell us! 

Kenen: As the one full-fledged member of the sandwich generation here, who has lived the experience of being a family caregiver while raising children and working full time, long-term care is the unfulfillable, extremely expensive, but incredibly important missing link in our health care system. We do not have a system for long-term care, and people do not realize that. Many people think Medicare will, in fact, cover it, where Medicare covers it in a very limited, short-term basis. So the estimates of what families spend both in terms of lost work hours and what they put out-of-pockets is in, I think it’s something like $400 billion. It’s extraordinarily high. But the reason it’s been hard to fix is it’s extraordinarily expensive. And although Harris put out a plan to pay for this, that plan is going to have to be vetted by economists and budget scorers and skeptical Republicans. And probably some skeptical Democrats. It’s really expensive. It’s really hard to do. Julie has covered this for years, too. It’s just— 

Rovner: I would say this is where I get to say one of my favorite things, which is that I started covering health care in 1986, and in 1986 my first big feature was: Why don’t we have a long-term care policy in this country? Thirty-eight years later, and we still don’t, and not that people have not tried. There, in fact, was a long-term-care-in-the-home piece of the Affordable Care Act that passed Congress, and HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] discovered that they could not implement it in the way it was written, because only the people who would’ve needed it would’ve signed up for it. It would’ve been too expensive. And there it went. So this is the continuing promise of something that everybody agrees that we need and nobody has ever been able to figure out how to do. Shefali, I see you nodding here. 

Luthra: I mean, I’m just thinking again about the pay-fors in here, which are largely the savings from Medicare negotiating drug prices. And what Harris says in her plan is that they’re going to get more savings by expanding the list of drugs that get lower prices. But that also feels very politically suspect when we have already heard congressional Republicans say that they would like to weaken some of those drug negotiation price provisions. And we also know that Democrats, even if they win the presidency, are not likely to have Congress. It really takes me back to 2020, when we are just talking about ideas that Democrats would love to do if they had full power of Congress, while all of us in Washington kind of know that that is just not going to happen. 

Rovner: Yes, I love that one of the pay-fors for this is cutting Medicare fraud. It’s like, where have we heard that before? Oh, yes. In every Medicare proposal for the last 45 years. 

Kenen: And it also involves closing some kind of international tax loopholes, and that also sounds easy on paper, and nothing with taxes is ever easy. The Democrats probably are not going to have the Senate. Nobody really knows about the House. It looks like the Democrats may have a narrow edge in that, but we’re going to have more years of gridlock unless something really changes politically, like something extraordinary changes politically. The Republicans are not going to give a President Harris, if she is in fact President Harris, her wish list on a golden platter. On the other hand there’s need for this. 

Rovner: But in fairness, this is what the campaign is for. 

Kenen: Right. There is a need for something on long-term care. 

Rovner: And everybody’s complaining: Well, what would she do? What would she do if she was elected? Well, here’s something she said she would do if she could, if she was elected. Well, meanwhile, former President [Donald] Trump has apparently abandoned a proposal that he made during his first term to require drugmakers to lower their prices for Medicare to no more than they charge in other developed countries where their prices are government-regulated. Is Trump going soft on the drug industry? Trump has been, what, the Republican, I think, who’s been most hostile towards the drug industry until now. 

Hellmann: I would say maybe. I think the “most favored nation” proposal is something that the pharmaceutical industry has feared even more than the Democrats’ Medicare negotiation program. And it’s something that Trump really pursued in his first term but wasn’t able to get done. In such a tight race, I think he’s really worried about angering pharmaceutical companies, especially after they were just kind of dealt this loss with Medicare price negotiation. And if he does win reelection, he’s going to be kind of limited in his ability to weaken that program. It’s going to be hard to repeal it. It’s extremely popular, and he may be able to weaken it. 

Rovner: “It” meaning price negotiation, not the “most favored nations” prices. 

Hellmann: Yeah. It’s going to be really hard to repeal that, and he may be able to weaken it through the negotiation process with drug companies. It’s definitely an interesting turn. 

Rovner: Joanne, you want to add something? 

Kenen: Trump rhetorically was very harsh on the drug companies right around the time of his inauguration. I think it was the week before, if I remember correctly. Said a lot of very tough stuff on drugs. Put out a list of something like dozens of potential steps. The drug companies have lots of allies in both parties, and more in one than the other, but they have allies on the Hill, and nothing revolutionary happened on drug pricing under Trump. 

Rovner: And his HHS secretary was a former drug company executive. 

Kenen: Yes, Eli Lilly. So we also pointed out here that former President Trump is not consistent in policy proposals. He says one thing, and then he says another thing, and it’s very hard to know where he’s going to come down. So Trump and drug pricing is an open question. 

Rovner: Yes, we will see. All right, well, moving on. Drug prices and Medicare aside, the biggest health issue of Campaign 2024 continues to be abortion and other reproductive health issues. And it’s not just Trump trying to back away from his anti-abortion record. We’ve had a spate of stories over the past week or so of Republicans running for the House, the Senate, and governorships who are trying to literally reinvent themselves as, if not actually supportive of abortion rights, at least anti abortion bans. And that includes Republicans who have not just voted for and advocated for bans but who have been outspokenly supportive of the anti-abortion effort, people like North Carolina Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Robinson, New Hampshire Republican gubernatorial candidate and former U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte, along with former Michigan Republican representative and now Senate candidate Mike Rogers. Donald Trump has gotten away repeatedly, as Joanne just said, with changing his positions, even on hot-button issues like abortion. Are these candidates going to be able to get away with doing the same thing, Shefali? 

Luthra: I think it’s just so much tougher when your name is not Donald Trump. And that’s because we know from focus group after focus group, and survey after survey, that voters kind of give Trump more leeway on abortion. Especially independent voters will look at him and say, Well, I don’t think he actually opposes abortion, because I’m sure he’s paid for them. And they don’t have that same grace that they give to Republican lawmakers and Republican candidates, because the party has a bad brand on abortion at large, and Trump is seen as this kind of maverick figure. But voters know that Republicans have a history of opposing abortion, of supporting restrictions. 

When you look at surveys, when you talk to voters, what they say is, Well, I don’t trust Republicans to represent my interests on this issue, because they largely support access. And one thing that I do think is really interesting is, once again, what we’re seeing is kind of a repeat of the 2022 elections when we saw some very brazen efforts by Republican candidates for the House and Senate try and scrub references to abortion and to fetal personhood from their websites. And it didn’t work, because people have eyes and people have memories, and, also, campaigns have access to the internet archive and are able to show people that, even a few weeks ago, Republican candidates were saying something very different from what they are saying now. I don’t think Mark Robinson can really escape from his relatively recent and very public comments about abortion. 

Rovner: Well, on the other hand, there’s some things that don’t change. Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance told RealClearPolitics last week that if Trump is elected again, their administration would cut off funding to Planned Parenthood because, he said, and I quote, “We don’t think that taxpayers should fund late-term abortions.” Notwithstanding, of course, that even before the overturn of Roe, less than half of all Planned Parenthoods even performed abortions and almost none of those who did perform them later in pregnancy. Is it fair to say that Vance’s anti-abortion slip is showing? 

Luthra: I think it might be. And I will say, Julie, when I saw that he said that, I could hear you in my head just yelling about the Hyde Amendment, because we know that Planned Parenthood does not use taxpayer money to pay for abortions. But we also know that JD Vance has seen that he and his ticket are kind of in a tough corner talking about abortion. He has said many times, We need to rebrand — he’s very honest about that, at least — and trying to focus instead on this nonmedical term of “late term” abortions. 

It’s a gamble. It’s hoping that voters will be more sympathetic to that because they’ll think, Oh, well, that sounds very extreme. And they’re trying to shift back who is seen as credible and who is not, by focusing on something that historically was less popular. But again, it’s again tricky because when we look at the polling, voters’ understanding of abortion has shifted and they are now more likely to understand that when you have an abortion later in pregnancy, it is often for very medically complex reasons. And someone very high-profile who recently said that is Melania Trump in her new memoir, talking about how she supports abortion at all stages of pregnancy because often these are very heart-wrenching cases and not sort of the murder that Republicans have tried to characterize them as. 

Rovner: I think you’re right. I think this is the continuation of the 2022 campaign, except that we’ve had so many more women come forward. We’ve seen actual cases. It used to be anti-abortion forces would say, Oh, well, this never happened. I mean, these are wrenching, awful things that happened to a lot of these patients with pregnancy complications late in pregnancy. And it is, I know, because I’ve talked to them. It’s very hard to get them to talk publicly, because then they get trolled. Why should they step forward? 

Well, now we’ve seen a lot of these women stepping forward. So we now see a public that knows that this happens, because they’re hearing from the people that it’s happened to and they’re hearing from their doctors. I do know also from the polling that there are people who are going to vote in these 10 states where abortion is on the ballot. Many of them are going to vote for abortion access and then turn around and vote for Republicans who support restrictions, because they’re Republicans. It may or may not be their most important issue, but I still think it’s a big question mark where that happens and how it shakes out. Joanne, did you want to add something? 

Kenen: You’re seeing two competing things at the same time. You have a number of Republicans trying to moderate their stance or at least sound like they’re moderating their stance. At the same time, you also have the whole, where the Republican Party is on abortion has shifted to the right. They are talking about personhood at the moment of conception, the embryo — which is, scientifically put, a small ball of cells still at that point — that they actually have the same legal rights as any other post-birth person. 

So that’s become a fairly common view in the Republican Party, as opposed to something that just five or six years ago was seen as the fringe. And Trump is going around saying that Democrats allow babies to be executed after birth, which is not true. And they’re particularly saying this is true in Minnesota because of [Gov.] Tim Walz, and some voters must believe it, right? Because they keep saying it. So you have this trend that Shefali just described and that you’ve described, Julie, about this sort of attempting to win back trust, as Vance said. And it sounded more moderate, and at the same time as you’re hearing this rhetoric about personhood and execution. So I don’t think the Republicans have yet solved their own whiplash post-Roe. 

Rovner: Meanwhile, the abortion debate is getting mired in the free-speech debate. In Florida, Republican governor Ron DeSantis is threatening legal action against TV stations airing an ad in support of the ballot measure that would overturn the state’s six-week abortion ban. That has in turn triggered a rebuke from the head of the Federal Communications Commission warning that political speech is still protected here in the United States. Shefali, this is really kind of out there, isn’t it? 

Luthra: It’s just so fascinating, and it’s really part of a bigger effort by Ron DeSantis to try and leverage anything that he can politically or, frankly, in his capacity as head of the state to try and weaken the campaign for the ballot measure. They have used the health department in other ways to try and send out material suggesting that the campaign’s talking points, which are largely focused on the futility of exceptions to the abortion ban, they’re trying to argue that that is misinformation, and that’s not true. And they’re using the state health department to make that argument, which is something we don’t really see very often, because usually health departments are supposed to be nonpartisan. And what I will say is, in this case, at least to your point, Julie, the FCC has weighed in and said: You can’t do this. You can’t stop a TV station from airing a political ad that was bought and paid for. And the ads haven’t stopped showing at this point. I just heard from family yesterday in Florida who are seeing the ads in question on their TV, and it’s still— 

Rovner: And I will post a link to the ad just so you can see it. It’s about a woman who’s pregnant and had cancer and needed cancer treatment and needed to terminate the pregnancy in order to get the cancer treatment. It said that the exception would not allow her to, which the state says isn’t true and which is clearly one of these things that is debatable. That’s why we’re having a political debate. 

Luthra: Exactly. And one thing that I think is worth adding in here is, I mean, this really intense effort from Governor DeSantis and his administration comes at a time when already this ballot measure faces probably the toughest fight of any abortion rights measure. And we have seen abortion rights win again and again at the ballot, but in Florida you need 60% to pass. And if you look across the country at every abortion rights measure that has been voted on since Roe v. Wade was overturned, only two have cleared 60, and they are in California and they are in Vermont. So these more conservative-leaning states, and Florida is one of them, it’s just, it’s really, really hard to see how you get to that number. And we even saw this week there’s polling that suggests that the campaign has a lot of work to do if they’re hoping to clear that threshold. 

Rovner: And, of course, now they have two hurricanes to deal with, which we will deal with in a few minutes. But first, the Supreme Court is back in session here in Washington, and even though there’s no big abortion case on its official docket as of now this term, the court quickly declined to hear two cases on its first day back, one involving whether the abortion ban in Texas can override the federal emergency treatment law that’s supposed to guarantee abortion access in medical emergencies threatening the pregnant woman’s life or health. The court also declined to overrule the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling that frozen embryos can be considered legally as unborn children. That’s what Joanne was just talking about. Where do these two decisions leave us? Neither one actually resolved either of these questions, right? 

Luthra: I mean, the EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act] question is still ongoing, not because of the Texas case but because of the Idaho case that is asking very similar questions that we’ve talked about previously on this podcast. And the end of last term, the court kicked that back down to the lower courts to continue making its way through. We anticipate it will eventually come back to the Supreme Court. So this is a question that we will, in fact, be hearing on at some point. 

Rovner: Although, the irony here is that in Idaho, the ban is on hold because there was a court stay. And in Texas, the ban is not on hold, even though we’re talking about exactly the same question: Does the federal law overrule the state’s ban? 

Luthra: And what that kind of highlights — right? — is just how much access to abortion, even under states with similar laws or legislatures, really does depend on so many factors, including what circuit court you fall into or the makeup of your state Supreme Court and how judges are appointed or whether they are elected. There is just so much at play that makes access so variable. And I think the other thing that one could speculate that maybe the court didn’t want headlines around reproductive health so soon into an election, but it’s not as if this is an issue that they’re going to be avoiding in the medium- or long-term future. These are questions that are just too pressing, and they will be coming back to the Supreme Court in some form. 

Rovner: Yes, I would say in the IVF [in vitro fertilization] case, they simply basically said, Go away for now. Right? 

Luthra: Yeah. And, I mean, right now in Alabama, people are largely able to get IVF because of the state law that was passed, even if it didn’t touch the substance of that state court’s ruling. This is something, for now, people can sort of think is maybe uninterrupted, even as we all know that the ideological and political groundwork is being laid for a much longer and more intense fight over this. 

Rovner: Well, remember back last week when we predicted that the judge’s decision overturning Georgia’s six-week ban was unlikely to be the last word? Well, sure enough, the Georgia Supreme Court this week overturned the immediate overturning of the ban, which officially went back into effect on Monday. Like these other cases, this one continues, right? 

Luthra: Yes, this continues. The Georgia case continued for a while, and it just sort of underscores again what we’ve been talking about, just how much access really changes back and forth. And I was talking to an abortion clinic provider who has clinics in North Carolina and Georgia. She literally found out about the decision both times and changed her plans for the next day because I texted her asking her for comment. And providers and patients are being tasked with keeping up with so much. And it’s just very, very difficult, because Georgia also has a 24-hour waiting period for abortions, which means that every time the decision around access has changed — and we know it very well could change again as this case progresses — people will have to scramble very quickly. And in Georgia, they have also been trying to do that on top of navigating the fallout of a hurricane. 

Rovner: Yeah. And as we pointed out a couple of weeks ago when the court overturned the North Dakota ban, there are no abortion providers left in North Dakota. Now that there’s no ban, it’s only in theory that abortion is now once again allowed in North Dakota. Well, before we leave abortion for this week, we have two new studies showing how abortion bans are impacting the health care workforce. In one survey, more than half of oncologists, cancer doctors, who were completing their fellowships, so people ready to go into practice, said they would consider the impact of abortion restrictions in their decisions about where to set up their practice. And a third said abortion restrictions hindered their ability to provide care. 

Meanwhile, a survey of OBGYNs in Texas by the consulting group Manatt Health found “a significant majority of practicing OB/GYN physicians … believe that the Texas abortion laws have inhibited their ability to provide highest-quality and medically necessary care to their patients,” and that many have already made or are considering making changes to their practice that would “reduce the availability of OB/GYN care in the state.” What’s the anti-abortion reaction to this growing body of evidence that abortion bans are having deleterious effects on the availability of other kinds of health care, too? I mean, I was particularly taken by the oncologists, the idea that you might not be able to get cancer care because cancer doctors are worried about treating pregnant women with cancer. 

Luthra: They’re blaming the doctors. And we saw this in Texas when the Zurawski case was argued and women patients and doctors in the state said that they had not been able to get essential, lifesaving medical care because of the state’s abortion ban and lack of clarity around what was actually permitted. And the state argued, and we have heard this talking point again and again, that actually the doctors are just not willing to do the hard work of practicing medicine and trying to interpret, Well, obviously this qualifies. That’s something we’ve seen in the Florida arguments. They say: Our exceptions are so clear, and if you aren’t able to navigate these exceptions, well, that’s your problem, because you are being risk-averse, and patients should really take this up with their doctors, who are just irresponsible. 

Rovner: Yes, this is obviously an issue that’s going to continue. Well, moving on. The cost of health care continues to grow, which is not really news, but this week we have more hard evidence, courtesy of my KFF colleagues via the annual 2024 Employer Health Benefit Survey, which finds the average family premium rose 7% this year to $25,572, with workers contributing an average of $6,296 towards that cost. And that’s with a distinct minority of firms covering two very popular but very expensive medical interventions, GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide-1] drugs for obesity and IVF, which we’ve just been talking about. Anything else in this survey jump out at anybody? 

Hellmann: I mean, that’s just a massive amount of money. And the employer is really paying the majority of that, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have an impact on people. That means it’s going to limit how much your wages go up. And something I thought of when I read this study is these lawsuits that we’re beginning to see, accusing employers of not doing enough to make sure that they’re limiting health care costs. They’re not playing enough of a role in what their benefits look like. They’re kind of outsourcing this to consultants. And so when you look at this data and you see $25,000 they’re spending per year per family on health care premiums, you wonder, what are they doing? 

Health care, yes, it’s obviously very expensive, but you just kind of question, what role are employers actually playing in trying to drive down health care costs? Are they just taking what they get from consultants? And another thing that kind of stood out to me from this is, I think it’s said in there, employers are having a hard time lately of passing these costs on to employees, which is really interesting. It’s because of the tight labor market. But obviously health care is still very expensive for employees — $6,000 a year in premiums for family coverage is not a small amount of money. So employers are just continuing to absorb that, and it does really impact everyone. 

Rovner: It’s funny. Before the Affordable Care Act, it was employers who were sort of driving the, You must do something about the cost of health care, because inflation was so fast. And then, of course, we saw health care inflation, at least, slow down for several years. Now it’s picking up again. Are we going to see employers sort of getting back into this jumping up and down and saying, “We’ve got to do something about health care costs”? 

Hellmann: I feel like we are seeing more of that. You’re beginning to hear more from employers about it. I don’t know. It’s just such a hard issue to solve, and I’ve seen more and more interest from Congress about this, but they really struggle to regulate the commercial market. So … 

Rovner: Yes, as we talk about at length every week. But it’s still important, and they will still go for it. Well, finally, this week in health misinformation. Let us talk about hurricanes — the public health misinformation that’s being spread both about Hurricane Helene that hit the Southeast two weeks ago, and Hurricane Milton that’s exiting Florida even as we are taping this morning. President [Joe] Biden addressed the press yesterday from the White House, calling out former President Trump by name along with Georgia Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene for spreading deliberate misinformation that’s not just undermining efforts at storm relief but actually putting people in more danger. Now, I remember Hurricane Katrina and all the criticism that was heaped, mostly deservedly, on George W. Bush and his administration, but I don’t remember deliberate misinformation like this. I mean, Joanne, have you ever seen anything like this? You lived in Florida for a while. 

Kenen: I went through Andrew, and there’s always a certain — there’s confusion and chaos after a big storm. But there’s a difference between stuff being wrong that can be corrected and stuff being intentionally said that then in this sort of divided, suspicious, two-realities world we’re now living in, that’s being repeated and perpetuated and amplified. It damages public health. It damages people economically trying to recover from this disastrous storm or in some cases storms. I don’t know how many people actually believe that Marjorie Taylor asserted that the Democrats are controlling the weather and sending storms to suppress Republican voters. She still has a following, right? But other things … 

Rovner: She still gets reelected. 

Kenen: … being told that if you go to FEMA [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] for help, your property will be confiscated and taken away from you. I mean, that’s all over the place, and it’s not true. Even a number of Republican lawmakers in the affected states have been on social media and making statements on local TV and whatever, saying: This is not true. Please, FEMA is there to help you. Let’s get through this. Stop the lies. A number of Republicans have actually been quite blunt about the misinformation coming from their colleagues and urging their constituents to seek and take the help that’s available. 

This is the public health crisis. We don’t know how many people have been killed. I don’t think we have an accurate total final count from Helene, and we sure don’t have from Milton. I mean, the people did seem to take this storm seriously and evacuated, but it also spawned something like three dozen tornadoes in places where people hadn’t been told, there’s normally no need to evacuate. There’s flooding. It’s a devastating storm. So when people are flooding, power outages, electricity, hard to get access to health care, you can’t refrigerate your insulin. All these— 

Rovner: Toxic floodwaters, I mean, the one thing … 

Kenen: Toxic, yeah. 

Rovner: … we know about hurricanes is that they’re more dangerous in the aftermath than during the actual storm in terms of public health. 

Kenen: Right. This is a life-threatening public health emergency to really millions of people. And misinformation, not just getting something wrong and then trying to correct it, but intentional disinformation, is something we haven’t seen before in a natural disaster. And we’re only going to have more natural disasters. And it was really — I mean, Julie, you already pointed this out — but it was really unusual how precise Biden was yesterday in calling out Trump by name, and I believe at two different times yesterday. So I heard one, but I think I read about what I think was the second one really saying, laying it at his feet that this is harming people. 

Rovner: Yeah, like I said, I remember Katrina vividly, and that was obviously a really devastating storm. I do also remember Democrats and Republicans, even while they were criticizing the federal government reaction to it, not spreading things that were obviously untrue. All right. Well, that is the news for this week. Now we will play a segment from our Newsmaker interview with Mark Cuban, and then we will be back with our extra credits. 

On Tuesday, October 8th, Mark Cuban met with a group of reporters for a Newsmaker lunch at KFF’s offices in Washington, D.C. Cuban, a billionaire best known as a panelist on the ABC TV show “Shark Tank,” has taken an interest in health policy in the past several years. He’s been consulting with the campaign of Vice President Harris, although he says he’s definitely not interested in a government post if she wins. Cuban started out talking about how, as he sees it, the biggest problem with drug prices in the U.S. is that no one knows what anyone else is paying. 

Mark Cuban: I mean, when I talk to corporations and I’ve tried to explain to them how they’re getting ripped off, the biggest of the biggest said, Well, so-and-so PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] is passing through all of their rebates to us. 

And I’m like: Does that include the subsidiary in Scotland or Japan? Is that where the other one is? 

I don’t know. 

And it doesn’t. By definition, you’re passing through all the rebates with the company you contracted with, but they’re not passing through all the rebates that they get or that they’re keeping in their subsidiary. And so, yeah, I truly, truly believe from there everybody can argue about the best way. Where do you use artificial intelligence? Where do you do this? What’s the EHR [electronic health record? What’s this? We can all argue about best practices there. But without a foundation of information that’s available to everybody, the market’s not efficient and there’s no place to go. 

Rovner: He says his online generic drug marketplace, costplusdrugs.com, is already addressing that problem. 

Cuban: The crazy thing about costplusdrugs.com, the greatest impact we had wasn’t the markup we chose or the way we approach it. It’s publishing our price list. That changed the game more than anything. So when you saw the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] go after the PBMs, they used a lot of our pricing for all the non-insulin stuff. When you saw these articles written by the Times and others, or even better yet, there was research from Vanderbilt, I think it was, that says nine oncology drugs, if they were purchased by Medicare through Cost Plus, would save $3.6 billion. These 15, whatever drugs would save six-point-whatever billion. All because we published our price list, people are starting to realize that things are really out of whack. And so that’s why I put the emphasis on transparency, because whether it’s inside of government or inside companies that self-insure, in particular, they’re going to be able to see. The number one rule of health care contracts, particularly PBM contracts, is you can’t talk about PBM contracts. 

Rovner: Cuban also says that more transparency can address problems in the rest of the health care system, not just for drug prices. Here’s how he responded to a question I asked describing his next big plan for health care. 

We’ve had, obviously, issues with the system being run by the government not very efficiently and being run by the private sector not very efficiently. 

Cuban: Very efficiently, yeah. 

Rovner: And right now we seem to have this sort of working at cross-purposes. If you could design a system from the ground up, which would you let do it? The government or— 

Cuban: I don’t think that’s really the issue. I think the issue is a lack of transparency. And you see that in any organization. The more communication and the more the culture is open and transparent, the more people hold each other responsible. And I think you get fiefdoms in private industry and you get fiefdoms in government, as well, because they know that if no one can see the results of their work, it doesn’t matter. I can say my deal was the best and I did the best and our outcomes are the best, but there’s no way to question it. And so talking to the Harris campaign, it’s like if you introduce transparency, even to the point of requiring PBMs and insurers to publish their contracts publicly, then you start to introduce an efficient market. And once you have an efficient market, then people are better able to make decisions and then you can hold them more accountable. 

And I think that’s going to spill over beyond pharm. We’re working on — it’s not a company — but we’re working on something called Cost Plus Wellness, where we’re eating our own dog food. And it’s not a company that’s going to be a for-profit or even a nonprofit, for that matter, just for the lives that I cover for my companies, that we self-insure. We’re doing direct contracting with providers, and we’re going to publish those contracts. And part and parcel to that is going through the — and I apologize if I’m stumbling here. I haven’t slept in two days, so bear with me. But going through the hierarchy of care and following the money, if you think about when we talk to CFOs and CEOs of providers, one of the things that was stunning to me that I never imagined is the relationship between deductibles for self-insured companies and payers, and the risk associated with collecting those deductibles to providers. 

And I think people don’t really realize the connection there. So whoever does Ann’s care [KFF Chief Communications Officer Ann DeFabio, who was present] — well, Kaiser’s a little bit different, but let’s just say you’re employed at The Washington Post or whoever and you have a $2,500 deductible. And something happens. Your kid breaks their leg and goes to the hospital, and you’re out of market, and it’s out of network. Well, whatever hospital you go to there, you might give your insurance card, but you’re responsible for that first $2,500. And that provider, depending on where it’s located, might have collection — bad debt, rather — of 50% or more. 

So what does that mean in terms of how they have to set their pricing? Obviously, that pricing goes up. So there’s literally a relationship between, particularly on pharmacy, if my company takes a bigger rebate, which in turn means I have a higher deductible because there’s less responsibility for the PBM-slash-insurance company. My higher deductible also means that my sickest employees are the ones paying that deductible, because they’re the ones that have to use it. And my older employees who have ongoing health issues and have chronic illnesses and need medication, they’re paying higher copays. But when they have to go to the hospital with that same deductible, because I took more of a rebate, the hospital is taking more of a credit risk for me. That’s insane. That makes absolutely no sense. 

And so what I’ve said is as part of our wellness program and what we’re doing to — Project Alpo is what we call it, eating our own dog food. What I’ve said is, we’ve gone to the providers and said: Look, we know you’re taking this deductible risk. We’ll pay you cash to eliminate that. But wait, there’s more. We also know that when you go through a typical insurer, even if it’s a self-insured employer using that insurer and you’re just using the insurance company not for insurance services but as a TPA [third-party administrator], the TPA still plays games with the provider, and they underpay them all the time. 

And so what happens as a result of the underpayment is that provider has to have offices and offices full of administrative assistants and lawyers, and they have to not only pay for those people, but they have the associated overhead and burden and the time. And then talking to them, to a big hospital system, they said that’s about 2% of their revenue. So because of that, that’s 2%. Then, wait, there’s more. You have the pre-ops, and you have the TPAs who fight you on the pre-ops. But the downstream economic impacts are enormous because, first, the doctor has to ask for the pre-op. That’s eating doctor’s time, and so they see fewer patients. And then not only does the doctor have to deal with them, they go to HR at the company who self-insures and says, Wait, my employee can’t come to work, because their child is sick, and you won’t approve this process or, whatever, this procedure, because it has to go through this pre-op. 

Or if it’s on medications, it’s you want to go through the step-up process or you want to go through a different utilization because you get more rebates. All these pieces are intertwined, and we don’t look at it holistically. And so what we’re saying with Cost Plus Wellness is, we’re going to do this all in a cash basis. We’re going to trust doctors so that we’re not going to go through a pre-op. Now we’ll trust but verify. So as we go through our population and we look at all of our claims, because we’ll own all of our claims, we’re going to look to see if there are repetitive issues with somebody who’s just trying to —there’s lots of back surgeries or there’s lots of this or there’s lots of that — to see if somebody’s abusing us. And because there’s no deductible, we pay it, and we pay it right when the procedure happens or right when the medication is prescribed. Because of all that, we want Medicare pricing. Nobody’s saying no. And in some cases I’m getting lower than Medicare pricing for primary care stuff. 

Rovner: OK, we are back. Now it’s time for our extra credits. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read too. Don’t worry if you miss the details. We will include the links to all these stories in our show notes on your phone or other device. Joanne, why don’t you go first this week. 

Kenen: There was a fascinating story in The New York Times by Kate Morgan. The headline was “Her Face Was Unrecognizable After an Explosion. A Placenta Restored It.” So I knew nothing about this, and it was so interesting. Placentas have amazing healing properties for wound care, burns, infections, pain control, regenerating skin tissue, just many, many things. And it’s been well known for years, and it’s not widely used. This is a story specifically about a really severe burn victim in a gas explosion and how her face was totally restored. We don’t use this, partly because placenta — every childbirth, there’s a placenta. There are lots of them around. There’s I think three and a half million births a year, or that’s the estimate I read in the Times. One of the reasons they weren’t being used is, during the AIDS crisis, there was some development toward using them, and then the AIDS crisis, there was a fear of contamination and spreading the virus, and it stopped decades later. 

We have a lot more ways of detecting, controlling, figuring out whether something’s contaminated by AIDS or whether a patient has been exposed. It is being used again on a limited basis after C-sections, but it seems to have pretty astonishing — think about all the wound care for just diabetes. I’m not a scientist, but I just looked at the story and said, it seems like a lot of people could be healed quicker and more safely and earlier if this was developed. They’re thrown away now. They’re sent to hospital waste incinerators and biohazard waste. They’re garbage, and they’re actually medicine. 

Rovner: Definitely a scientist’s cool story. Shefali. 

Luthra: My story is from my brilliant colleague Mel Leonor Barclay. The headline is “Arizona’s Ballot Measure Could Shift the Narrative on Latinas and Abortion,” and as part of this really tremendous series that she has running this week, looking at how Latinas as a much more influential and growingly influential voter group could shape gun violence, abortion rights, and housing. And in this story, which I really love, she went to Arizona and spent time talking to folks on all sides of the issue to better understand how Latinas are affected by abortion rights and also how they’ll be voting on this. 

And she really challenges the narrative that has existed for so long, which is that Latinas are largely Catholic, largely more conservative on abortion. And she finds something much more complex, which is that actually polls really show that a large share of Latina voters in Arizona and similar states support abortion rights and will be voting in favor of measures like the Arizona constitutional amendment. But at the same time, there are real divides within the community, and people talk about their faith in a different way and how it connects their stance on abortion. They talk about their relationships with family in different ways, and I think it just underscores how rarely Latina voters are treated with real nuance and care and thoughtfulness when talking about something as complex as abortion and abortion politics. And I really love the way that she approaches this piece. 

Rovner: It was a super-interesting story. Jesse. 

Hellmann: My story is from The Assembly. It’s an outlet in North Carolina. It’s called “Helene Left Some North Carolina Elder-Care Homes Without Power.” Some assisted living facilities have been without power and water since the hurricane hit. Several facilities had to evacuate residents, and the story just kind of gets into how North Carolina has more lax rules around emergency preparedness. While they do require nursing homes be prepared to provide backup power, the same requirements don’t apply to assisted living facilities. And it’s because there’s been industry pushback against that because of the cost. But as we see some more of these extreme weather events, it seems like something has to be done. We cannot just allow vulnerable people living in these facilities to go hours and hours without power and water. And I saw that there was a facility where they evacuated dozens of people who had dementia, and that’s just something that’s really upsetting and traumatizing for people. 

Rovner: Yeah, once again, now we are seeing these extreme weather events in places that, unlike Florida and Texas, are not set up and used to extreme weather events. And it is something I think that a lot of people are starting to think about. Well, my story this week is from our KFF Health News public health project called Health Beat, and it’s called “A Boy’s Bicycling Death Haunts a Black Neighborhood. 35 Years Later, There’s Still No Sidewalk,” by Renuka Rayasam and Fred Clasen-Kelly. And it’s one of those stories you never really think about until it’s pointed out that in areas, particularly those that had been redlined, in particular, the lack of safety infrastructure that most of us take for granted — crosswalks, sidewalks, traffic lights are not really there. And that’s a public health crisis of its own, and it’s one that rarely gets addressed, and it’s a really infuriating but a really good story. 

All right, that is our show. Next week, for my birthday, we’re doing a live election preview show here at KFF in D.C., because I have a slightly warped idea of fun. And you’re all invited to join us. I will put a link to the RSVP in the show notes. I am promised there will be cake. 

As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcast. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our fill-in editor this week, Stephanie Stapleton. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth, all one word, @kff.org, or you can still find me for the moment at X. I’m @jrovner. Joanne, where are you? 

Kenen: @JoanneKenen sometimes on Twitter and @joannekenen1 on Threads.

Rovner: Jessie.

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann on Twitter.

Rovner: Shefali.

Luthra: @shefalil on Twitter.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

They showed that in 2023, for example, there were four active tuberculosis cases in Clark County, which includes Springfield, up from three in 2022. HIV cases had risen, but sexually transmitted illnesses overall were decreasing.

“I wouldn’t call it skyrocketing,” said Cook, noting that there were 190 active cases in 2023 in all of Ohio. “You hear the rhetoric. But as a whole, reportable infectious diseases to the health department are decreasing.”

Tensions are running high in this industrial town of about 58,000 people. Bomb threats closed schools and public buildings after GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump falsely claimed that Haitian immigrants — who he alleged were there illegally — were stealing and eating household pets. City and county officials disputed the claims the former president levied during his Sept. 10 debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, his Democratic opponent.

Trump was amplifying comments made by Vance that — along with his claims about the immigration status of this population — were broadly panned as false. When asked during a CNN interview about the debunked pet-eating rumor, Vance, a U.S. senator from Ohio, acknowledged that the image he created was based not on facts but on “firsthand accounts from my constituents.” He said he was willing “to create” stories to focus attention on how immigration can overrun communities.

But Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, also a Republican, has said immigrants have been an economic boon to Springfield. Many began arriving because businesses in the town, which had seen its population decrease, needed labor.

Largely lost in the political rancor is the way Springfield and the surrounding area responded to the influx of Haitian immigrants. Local health institutions tried to address the needs of this new population, which had lacked basic public health care such as immunization and often didn’t understand the U.S. health system.

The town is a microcosm of how immigration is reshaping communities throughout the United States. In the Springfield area, Catholic charities, other philanthropies, volunteers, and county agencies have banded together over the past three to four years to tackle the challenge and connect immigrants who have critical health needs with providers and care.

For instance, a community health center added Haitian Creole interpreters. The county health department opened a refugee health testing clinic to provide immunizations and basic health screenings, operating on such a shoestring budget that it’s open only two days a week.

And a coalition of groups to aid the Haitian community was created about two years ago to identify and respond to immigrant community needs. The group meets once a month with about 55 or 60 participants. On Sept. 18, about a week after Trump ramped up the furor at the debate, a record 138 participants joined in.

“We have all learned the necessity of collaboration,” said Casey Rollins, director of Springfield’s St. Vincent de Paul, a nonprofit Catholic social services organization that has become a lifeline for many of the town’s Haitian immigrants. “There’s a lot of medical need. Many of the people have high blood pressure, or they frequently have diabetes.”

Several factors have led Haitians to leave their Caribbean country for the United States, including a devastating earthquake in 2010, political unrest after the 2021 assassination of Haiti’s president, and ongoing gang violence. Even when health facilities in the country are open, it can be too treacherous for Haitians to travel for treatment.

“The gangs typically leave us alone, but it’s not a guarantee,” said Paul Glover, who helps oversee the St. Vincent’s Center for children with disabilities in Haiti. “We had a 3,000-square-foot clinic. It was destroyed. So was the X-ray machine. People have been putting off health care.”

An estimated 12,000 to 15,000 Haitian immigrants live in Clark County, officials said. About 700,000 Haitian immigrants lived in the United States in 2022, according to U.S. Census data.

Those who have settled in the Springfield area are generally in the country legally under a federal program that lets noncitizens temporarily enter and stay in the United States under certain circumstances, such as for urgent humanitarian reasons, according to city officials.

The influx of immigrants created a learning curve for hospitals and primary care providers in Springfield, as well as for the newcomers themselves. In Haiti, people often go directly to a hospital to receive care for all sorts of maladies, and county officials and advocacy groups said many of the immigrants were unfamiliar with the U.S. system of seeing primary care doctors first or making appointments for treatment.

Many sought care at Rocking Horse Community Health Center, a nonprofit, federally qualified health center that provides mental health, primary, and preventive care to people regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. Federally qualified health centers serve medically underserved areas and populations.

The center treated 410 patients from Haiti in 2022, up more than 250% from 115 in 2021, according to Nettie Carter-Smith, the center’s director of community relations. Because the patients required interpreters, visits often stretched twice as long.

Rocking Horse hired patient navigators fluent in Haitian Creole, one of the two official languages of Haiti. Its roving purple bus provides on-site health screenings, vaccinations, and management of chronic conditions. And this school year, it’s operating a $2 million health clinic at Springfield High.

Many Haitians in Springfield have reported threats since Trump and Vance made their town a focus of the campaign. Community organizations were unable to identify any immigrants willing to be interviewed for this story.

Hospitals have also felt the impact. Mercy Health’s Springfield Regional Medical Center also saw a rapid influx of patients, spokesperson Jennifer Robinson said, with high utilization of emergency, primary care, and women’s health services.

This year, hospitals also have seen several readmissions for newborns struggling to thrive as some new mothers have trouble breastfeeding or getting supplemental formula, county officials said. One reason: New Haitian immigrants must wait six to eight weeks to get into a program that provides supplemental food for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, or non-breastfeeding postpartum women, as well as for children and infants.

At Kettering Health Springfield, Haitian immigrants come to the emergency department for nonemergency care. Nurses are working on two related projects, one focusing on cultural awareness for staff and another exploring ways to improve communication with Haitian immigrants during discharge and in scheduling follow-up appointments.

Many of the immigrants are able to get health insurance. Haitian entrants generally qualify for Medicaid, the state-federal program for the low-income and disabled. For hospitals, that means lower reimbursement rates than with traditional insurance.

During 2023, 60,494 people in Clark County were enrolled in Medicaid, about 25% of whom were Black, according to state data. That’s up from 50,112 in 2017, when 17% of the enrollees were Black. That increase coincides with the rise of the Haitian population.

In September, DeWine pledged $2.5 million to help health centers and the county health department meet the Haitian and broader community’s needs. The Republican governor has pushed back on the recent national focus on the town, saying the spread of false rumors has been hurtful for the community.

Ken Gordon, a spokesperson for the Ohio Department of Health, acknowledged the difficulties Springfield’s health systems have faced and said the department is monitoring to avert potential outbreaks of measles, whooping cough, and even polio.

People diagnosed with HIV in the county increased from 142 residents in 2018 to 178 to 2022, according to state health department data. Cook, the Clark County health commissioner, said the data lags by about 1.5 years.

But Cook said, “as a whole, all reportable infections to the health department are not increasing.” Last year, he said, no one died of tuberculosis. “But 42 people died of covid.”

Healthbeat is a nonprofit newsroom covering public health published by Civic News Company and KFF Health News. Sign up for its newsletters here.

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).

Along the way, she learned about her own family’s history with such trauma.

This formed the multimedia “Silence in Sikeston” project from KFF Health News, Retro Report, and WORLD as told through a documentary film, educational videos, digital articles, and a limited-series podcast. Hear about Anthony’s journey and join this conversation about the toll of racialized violence on our health and our communities.

Explore more of the “Silence in Sikeston”project:

LISTEN: The limited-series podcast is available on PRX, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeart, or wherever you get your podcasts.

• Episode 1: “Racism Can Make You Sick”
• Episode 2: “Hush, Fix Your Face”
• Episode 3: “Trauma Lives in the Body”
• Episode 4: “Is There a Cure for Racism”

WATCH: The documentary film “Silence in Sikeston,” a co-production of KFF Health News and Retro Report, is now available to stream on WORLD’s YouTube channel, WORLDchannel.org, and the PBS app.

READ: KFF Health News Midwest correspondent Cara Anthony wrote an essay about what her reporting for this project helped her learn about her own family’s hidden past.

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).

Su esposo, Bradley McGinnis, dijo que ella le había informado a su doctor y enfermeras sobre sus síntomas e incluso había ido a la sala de emergencias cuando empeoraron. Pero, según Bradley, lo que le dijeron a su esposa fue: “‘Es verano y estás embarazada’. Eso me atormenta”.

Dos días después, Sara sufrió un derrame cerebral masivo seguido de una convulsión. Sucedió de camino al hospital, a donde iba nuevamente por un dolor de cabeza insoportable.

Sara, de Kalispell, Montana, nunca conoció a su hijo, Owen, quien sobrevivió gracias a una cesárea de emergencia y tiene sus mismos ojos ovalados y su espeso cabello oscuro. La mujer murió al día siguiente del nacimiento.

Sara tuvo eclampsia, una complicación del embarazo a veces mortal causada por presión arterial alta persistente, también conocida como hipertensión.

Sara murió en 2018. Hoy en día, más embarazadas reciben diagnósticos de presión arterial peligrosamente alta, un hallazgo que podría salvar vidas. Estudios recientes muestran que las tasas de nuevos casos y de hipertensión materna crónica casi se han duplicado desde 2007. Investigadores dicen que el aumento en los casos se debe en parte a más pruebas que detectan la afección.

Pero esa no es toda la historia. Los datos muestran que la tasa general de mortalidad materna en el país también está aumentando, siendo la hipertensión una de las principales causas.

Expertos médicos están tratando de frenar esta tendencia. En 2022, el Colegio Americano de Obstetras y Ginecólogos bajó el umbral sobre cuándo los médicos deben comenzar a tratar a pacientes embarazadas y en posparto por hipertensión.

Y las agencias federales ofrecen capacitación en mejores prácticas para la detección y atención. Los datos federales muestran que las muertes maternas por hipertensión disminuyeron en Alaska y West Virginia después de la implementación de esas pautas.

Pero aplicar esos estándares en la atención diaria lleva tiempo, y los hospitales aún están trabajando para incorporar prácticas que podrían haber salvado la vida de Sara.

En Montana, que el año pasado se convirtió en uno de los 35 estados en implementar las pautas federales de seguridad para pacientes, más de dos tercios de los hospitales brindaron atención oportuna a los pacientes, dijo Annie Glover, científica investigadora senior del Montana Perinatal Quality Collaborative. Desde 2022, poco más de la mitad de los hospitales alcanzaron ese umbral.

“Toma un tiempo implementar un cambio en un hospital”, dijo Glover.

La hipertensión puede dañar los ojos, pulmones, riñones o corazón de una persona, con consecuencias que duran mucho más allá del embarazo. La preeclampsia —hipertensión persistente en el embarazo— también puede causar un ataque cardíaco.

El problema puede desarrollarse por factores hereditarios o de estilo de vida: por ejemplo, tener sobrepeso predispone a las personas a la hipertensión. Lo mismo ocurre con la edad avanzada, y cada vez más personas tienen hijos en una etapa posterior de la vida.

Las personas negras e indígenas son mucho más propensas a desarrollar y morir por hipertensión en el embarazo que la población en general.

“El embarazo es una prueba de estrés natural”, dijo Natalie Cameron, médica y epidemióloga de la Escuela de Medicina Feinberg de la Universidad Northwestern, quien ha estudiado el aumento en los diagnósticos de hipertensión. “Está desenmascarando este riesgo que siempre estuvo presente”.

Pero las mujeres embarazadas que no encajan en el perfil de riesgo típico también se están enfermando, y Cameron dijo que se necesita más investigación para entender por qué.

Mary Collins, de 31 años, de Helena, Montana, desarrolló hipertensión durante su embarazo este año. A mitad de la gestación, Collins aún hacía senderismo y asistía a clases de entrenamiento de fuerza. Sin embargo, se sentía lenta y estaba ganando peso demasiado rápido mientras el crecimiento de su bebé disminuía drásticamente.

Collins dijo que le diagnosticaron preeclampsia después de preguntarle a un obstetra sobre sus síntomas. Justo antes de eso, dijo, el doctor había dicho que todo iba bien mientras revisaba el desarrollo de su bebé.

“Revisó mis lecturas de presión arterial, hizo una evaluación física y simplemente me miró”, dijo Collins. “Él dijo: ‘En realidad, me retracto de lo que dije. Puedo garantizar fácilmente que serás diagnosticada con preeclampsia durante este embarazo, y deberías comprar un seguro para bajar los costos de transporte de emergencia (life flight insurance)”.

Así fue. Collins fue trasladada por aire a Missoula, Montana, para el parto, y su hija, Rory, nació dos meses antes. El bebé tuvo que pasar 45 días en la unidad de cuidados intensivos neonatales. Tanto Rory, que ahora tiene unos 3 meses, como Collins, aún se están recuperando.

El tratamiento típico para la preeclampsia es el parto. Los medicamentos pueden ayudar a prevenir convulsiones y acelerar el crecimiento del bebé para acortar el tiempo del embarazo si la salud de la madre o el feto lo necesitan. En raros casos, la preeclampsia puede desarrollarse poco después del parto, una condición que los investigadores aún no comprenden completamente.

Wanda Nicholson, presidenta del Grupo de Trabajo de Servicios Preventivos de EE. UU., un panel independiente de expertos en prevención de enfermedades, dijo que se necesita un monitoreo constante durante y después del embarazo para proteger verdaderamente a los pacientes. La presión arterial “puede cambiar en cuestión de días, o en un período de 24 horas”, dijo Nicholson.

Y los síntomas no siempre son claros.

Ese fue el caso de Emma Trotter. Días después de tener a su primer hijo en 2020 en San Francisco, sintió que su ritmo cardíaco disminuía. Trotter dijo que llamó a su médico y a una línea de ayuda para enfermeras, y ambos le dijeron que podría ir a la sala de emergencias si estaba preocupada, pero le aconsejaron que no. Así que se quedó en casa.

En 2022, unos cuatro días después de dar a luz a su segundo hijo, su corazón volvió a latir despacio. Esta vez, el equipo médico en su nuevo hogar en Missoula revisó sus signos vitales. Su presión arterial era tan alta que la enfermera pensó que el monitor estaba roto.

“‘Podrías tener un derrame cerebral en un segundo’”, recordó Trotter que le dijo su partera antes de enviarla al hospital.

Trotter estaba por tener a su tercer hijo en septiembre, y sus médicos planearon enviarla a casa con el nuevo bebé con un monitor de presión arterial.

Stephanie Leonard, epidemióloga de la Escuela de Medicina de la Universidad de Stanford que estudia la hipertensión en el embarazo, dijo que más monitoreo podría ayudar con problemas complejos de salud materna.

“La presión arterial es un componente en el que realmente podríamos tener un impacto”, dijo. “Es medible. Es tratable”.

El monitoreo ha sido durante mucho tiempo el objetivo. En 2015, la Administración de Recursos y Servicios de Salud federal trabajó con el Colegio Americano de Obstetras y Ginecólogos para implementar las mejores prácticas para hacer que el parto sea más seguro, incluyendo una guía específica para detectar y tratar la hipertensión.

El año pasado, el gobierno federal aumentó el financiamiento para estos esfuerzos para expandir la implementación de las guías.

“Gran parte de la disparidad en este ámbito se debe a que no se escucha las voces de las mujeres”, dijo Carole Johnson, jefa de la agencia de recursos de salud.

El Montana Perinatal Quality Collaborative pasó un año proporcionando esa capacitación sobre hipertensión a los hospitales de todo el estado. Al hacerlo, Melissa Wolf, jefa de servicios para mujeres en Bozeman Health, dijo que su sistema hospitalario aprendió que el uso por parte de los médicos de su plan de tratamiento para la hipertensión en el embarazo era “inconsistente”.

Incluso la forma en que las enfermeras medían la presión arterial de las pacientes embarazadas variaba. “Simplemente asumimos que todos sabían cómo tomar la presión arterial”, dijo Wolf.

Ahora, Bozeman Health está monitoreando el tratamiento con el objetivo de que cualquier embarazada con hipertensión reciba atención adecuada en el plazo de una hora. Carteles decoran las paredes de las clínicas y las puertas de los baños de los hospitales, enumerando los signos de advertencia de la preeclampsia. Se da de alta a los pacientes con una lista de señales de alerta para que estén atentas.

Katlin Tonkin es una de las enfermeras que capacita a los proveedores médicos de Montana sobre cómo hacer que el parto sea más seguro. Sabe lo importante que es por experiencia: en 2018, cuando estaba de 36 semanas, a Tonkin la diagnosticaron con preeclampsia severa, semanas después de haber desarrollado síntomas. Su parto de emergencia llegó demasiado tarde y su hijo Dawson, quien no había estado recibiendo suficiente oxígeno, murió poco después del nacimiento.

Desde entonces, Tonkin ha tenido dos hijos más, ambos nacieron sanos, y mantiene fotos de Dawson, tomadas durante su corta vida.

“Ojalá hubiera sabido entonces lo que sé ahora”, dijo Tonkin. “Tenemos las prácticas actuales basadas en evidencia. Solo necesitamos asegurarnos de que estén en funcionamiento”.

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).

Gerri Norington, 78, never wanted to be on her own as she grew old.

But her first marriage ended in divorce, and her second husband died more than 30 years ago. When a five-year relationship came to a close in 2006, she found herself alone — a situation that has lasted since.

“I miss having a companion who I can talk to and ask ‘How was your day?’ or ‘What do you think of what’s going on in the world?’” said Norington, who lives in an apartment building for seniors on the South Side of Chicago. Although she has a loving daughter in the city, “I don’t want to be a burden to her,” she said.

Norington is part of a large but often overlooked group: the more than 16 million Americans living alone while growing old. Surprisingly little is known about their experiences.

This slice of the older population has significant health issues: Nearly 4 in 10 seniors living alone have vision or hearing loss, difficulty caring for themselves and living independently, problems with cognition, or other disabilities, according to a KFF analysis of 2022 census data.

If help at home isn’t available when needed — an altogether too common problem — being alone can magnify these difficulties and contribute to worsening health.

Studies find that seniors on their own are at higher risk of becoming isolated, depressed, and inactive, having accidents, and neglecting to care for themselves. As a result, they tend to be hospitalized more often and suffer earlier-than-expected deaths.

Getting medical services can be a problem, especially if older adults living alone reside in rural areas or don’t drive. Too often, experts observe, health care providers don’t ask about older adults’ living situations and are unaware of the challenges they face.

***

During the past six months, I’ve spoken to dozens of older adults who live alone either by choice or by circumstance — most commonly, a spouse’s death. Some have adult children or other close relatives who are involved in their lives; many don’t.

In lengthy conversations, these seniors expressed several common concerns: How did I end up alone at this time of life? Am I OK with that? Who can I call on for help? Who can make decisions on my behalf if I’m unable to? How long will I be able to take care of myself, and what will happen when I can’t?

This “gray revolution” in Americans’ living arrangements is fueled by longer life spans, rising rates of divorce and childlessness, smaller families, the geographic dispersion of family members, an emphasis on aging in place, and a preference for what Eric Klinenberg, a professor of sociology at New York University, calls “intimacy at a distance” — being close to family, but not too close.

The most reliable, up-to-date data about older adults who live alone comes from the U.S. Census Bureau. According to its 2023 Current Population Survey, about 28% of people 65 and older live by themselves, including slightly fewer than 6 million men and slightly more than 10 million women. (The figure doesn’t include seniors living in institutions, primarily assisted living and nursing homes.)

By contrast, 1 in 10 older Americans lived on their own in 1950.

This is, first and foremost, an older women’s issue, because women outlive men and because they’re less likely to remarry after being widowed or divorcing. Twenty-seven percent of women ages 65 to 74 live alone, compared with 21% of men. After age 75, an astonishing 43% of women live alone, compared with only 24% for men.

The majority — 80% — of people who live alone after age 65 are divorced or widowed, twice the rate of the general population, according to KFF’s analysis of 2022 census data. More than 20% have incomes below $13,590, the federal poverty line in 2022, while 27% make between that and $27,180, twice the poverty level.

***

Of course, their experiences vary considerably. How older adults living alone are faring depends on their financial status, their housing, their networks of friends and family members, and resources in the communities where they live.

Attitudes can make a difference. Many older adults relish being independent, while others feel abandoned. It’s common for loneliness to come and go, even among people who have caring friends and family members.

“I like being alone better than I like being in relationships,” said Janice Chavez of Denver, who said she’s in her 70s. “I don’t have to ask anybody for anything. If I want to sleep late, I sleep late. If I want to stay up and watch TV, I can. I do whatever I want to do. I love the independence and the freedom.”

Chavez is twice divorced and has been on her own since 1985. As a girl, she wanted to be married and have lots of kids, but “I picked jerks,” she said. She talks to her daughter, Tracy, every day, and is close to several neighbors. She lives in the home she grew up in, inherited from her mother in 1991. Her only sibling, a brother, died a dozen years ago.

In Chicago, Norington is wondering whether to stay in her senior building or move to the suburbs after her car was vandalized this year. “Since the pandemic, fear has almost paralyzed me from getting out as much as I would like,” she told me.

She’s a take-charge person who has been deeply involved in her community. In 2016, Norington started an organization for single Black seniors in Chicago that sponsored speed dating events and monthly socials for several years. She volunteered with a local medical center doing outreach to seniors and brought health and wellness classes to her building. She organized cruises for friends and acquaintances to the Caribbean and Hawaii in 2022 and 2023.

Now, every morning, Norington sends a spiritual text message to 40 people, who often respond with messages of their own. “It helps me to feel less alone, to feel a sense of inclusion,” she said.

In Maine, Ken Elliott, 77, a retired psychology professor, lives by himself in a house in Mount Vernon, a town of 1,700 people 20 miles northwest of the state capital. He never married and doesn’t have children. His only living relative is an 80-year-old brother in California.

For several years, Elliott has tried to raise the profile of solo agers among Maine policymakers and senior organizations. This began when Elliott started inquiring about resources available to older adults living by themselves, like him. How were they getting to doctor appointments? Who was helping when they came home from the hospital and needed assistance? What if they needed extra help in the home but couldn’t afford it?

To Elliott’s surprise, he found this group wasn’t on anyone’s radar, and he began advocating on solo agers’ behalf.

Now, Elliott is thinking about how to put together a team of people who can help him as he ages in place — and how to build a stronger sense of community. “Aging without a mythic family support system — which everyone assumes people have — is tough for everybody,” Elliott said.

In Manhattan, Lester Shane, 72, who never married or had children, lives by himself in an 11-by-14-foot studio apartment on the third floor of a building without an elevator. He didn’t make much money during a long career as an actor, a writer, and a theater director, and he’s not sure how he’ll make ends meet once he stops teaching at Pace University.

“There are days when I’m carrying my groceries up three flights of stairs when I think, ‘This is really hard,’” Shane told me. Although his health is pretty good, he knows that won’t last forever.

“I’m on all the lists for senior housing — all lottery situations. Most of the people I’ve talked to said you will probably die before your number comes up,” he said with mordant humor.

Then, Shane turned serious. “I’m old and getting older, and whatever problems I have now are only going to get worse,” he said. As is the case for many older adults who live alone, his friends are getting older and having difficulties of their own.

The prospect of having no one he knows well to turn to is alarming, Shane admitted: “Underneath that is fear.”

Kate Shulamit Fagan, 80, has lived on her own since 1979, after two divorces. “It was never my intention to live alone,” she told me in a lengthy phone conversation. “I expected that I would meet someone and start another relationship and somehow sail off into the rest of my life. It’s been exceedingly hard to give up that expectation.”

When I first spoke to Fagan, in mid-March, she was having difficulty in Philadelphia, where she’d moved two years earlier to be close to one of her sons. “I’ve been really lonely recently,” she told me, describing how difficult it was to adjust to a new life in a new place. Although her son was attentive, Fagan desperately missed the close circle of friends she’d left behind in St. Petersburg, Florida, where she’d lived and worked for 30 years.

Four and a half months later, when I called Fagan again, she’d returned to St. Petersburg and was renting a one-bedroom apartment in a senior building in the center of the city. She’d celebrated her birthday there with 10 close friends and was meeting people in her building. “I’m not completely settled, but I feel fabulous,” she told me.

What accounted for the change? “Here, I know if I want to go out or I need help, quite a few people would be there for me,” Fagan said. “The fear is gone.”

As I explore the lives of older adults living alone in the next several months, I’m eager to hear from people who are in this situation. If you’d like to share your stories, please send them to khn.navigatingaging@gmail.com.

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 term “health equity” means different things to different people. It’s about access to medical care — but not only access to medical care. It’s about race, ethnicity, and gender; income, wealth, and class; and even geography — but not only those things. And it’s about how historical and institutional racism, manifested in things like over-policing and contaminated drinking water, can inflict health problems years and even generations later.

In a live taping on Sept. 6 at the Texas Tribune Festival, special guests Carol Alvarado, the Texas state Senate’s Democratic leader, and Ann Barnes, president and CEO of the Episcopal Health Foundation, along with KFF Health News’ Southern bureau chief Sabriya Rice and Midwest correspondent Cara Anthony, joined KFF Health News’ chief Washington correspondent, Julie Rovner, to discuss all that health equity encompasses and how current inequities can most effectively be addressed.

Anthony also previewed “Silence in Sikeston,” a four-part podcast and documentary debuting this month exploring how a history of lynching and racism continues to negatively affect the health of one rural community in Missouri.

Panelists

Carol Alvarado
Texas state senator (D-Houston)

Cara Anthony
Midwest correspondent, KFF Health News

Ann Barnes
President and CEO, Episcopal Health Foundation

Sabriya Rice
Southern bureau chief, KFF Health News

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast, from KFF Health News’ “Systemic Sickness” project:

• “A Teen’s Murder, Mold in the Walls: Unfulfilled Promises Haunt Public Housing,” by Fred Clasen-Kelly and Renuka Rayasam.
• “Med Schools Face a New Obstacle in the Push To Train More Black Doctors,” by Lauren Sausser.
• “‘I Feel Dismissed’: People Experiencing Colorism Say Health System Fails Them,” by Chaseedaw Giles.
• “As Record Heat Sweeps the US, Some People Must Choose Between Food and Energy Bills,” by Melba Newsome.
• “Black Hospitals Vanished in the U.S. Decades Ago. Some Communities Have Paid a Price,” by Lauren Sausser.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Live from Austin, Examining Health Equity

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and usually I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. But today we have a special episode for you all about health equity taped before a live audience at the Texas Tribune Festival on Sept. 6, 2024. I hope you enjoy it. We’ll be back with our regular panel and all the news on Sept. 12. So here we go.

I am pleased to be joined on this panel by two of my KFF Health News colleagues, Southern bureau chief Sabriya Rice, who’s right here next to me, and Midwest correspondent Cara Anthony, down at the end. We are also honored to be joined by two guests with a lot of combined expertise on this issue, [Texas] Senate Democratic leader Carol Alvarado, who represents the 6th District of Texas, which includes parts of Houston, and Dr. Ann Barnes, president and CEO of the Episcopal Health Foundation, also based in Houston.

We’re going to talk amongst ourselves for the next, I don’t know, 40 minutes or so. Then we will go to you in the audience for your questions. So go ahead and be thinking. I have to say I am personally really excited about this episode because health equity is something I think about a lot, but I’ve never been able to accurately define, even for myself. I know it’s about race and ethnicity and gender, but it’s not just about race and ethnicity and gender. It’s about income and wealth and class, but it’s not just about income and wealth and class. It’s about geography, but not just about geography. And it’s about medical care, but not just about medical care. So I want to kick off this discussion by asking each of you how you define health equity. And why don’t we just sort of go down the row? So we’ll start with you, Sabriya.

Sabriya Rice: Really great question and it gave me a lot of things to think about. And I want to start with a little anecdote from something that happened yesterday evening. I was having a conversation with a group of visitors from South Africa who work for an investigative news site there called The Daily Maverick, and my colleague, Aneri Pattani, who’s also a KFF Health News reporter. We were explaining some of the things about the U.S. health care system and just some basic stuff like how a lot of people can’t afford to just go for preventive care, how you may or may not have access to care in your neighborhood, and what that means in terms of your health outcomes.

And in the middle, they paused us and were like, “Wait a minute, wait a minute. This doesn’t make any sense. We have these things in South Africa.” It’s something you hear regularly from other people who are visiting here and they’re like, “But you’re like the wealthiest country in the world. How do you not have these things?” And I was thinking about that and thinking of, in terms of your question. So, for me, I think of health equity as just creating the opportunity for everyone to be able to achieve their optimal health no matter their background. And I think that’s something we could really work on in the U.S.

Ann Barnes: Great.When I think about health equity, I share a similar definition where folks have a just and fair opportunity to live their healthiest lives. And this is largely from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s definition of health equity. But coupled with that is the requirement to dismantle barriers to health. And so we have to remember that that is part of the equation, not just dreaming that we all have optimal health, but thinking about how we’re going to eliminate the barriers, especially for populations that are most vulnerable.

Carol Alvarado: I think about accessibility and affordability. And if you don’t have those two things in health care, then you create this environment of the haves and the have-nots, those who can afford to have health insurance and those who can’t. Maybe it’s because of their job, their social economic status. And I also think that we have to take partisanship and politics out of health care. I mean, when did that become such a divisive issue that really reached the height during the Obamacare debate and the many, many times to repeal it? And I know we’re going to dive into this a little bit more, but health care and access should never be political.

Cara Anthony: When I think about health equity, I agree with all of the panelists here today, but I’m also thinking about the future and the next generation. I’m a single mom. I have a 7-year-old daughter, and I think about how is she going to be able to live a longer and healthier life than previous generations. I’m going back home tomorrow and one of the first things that I’m going to do is sign my daughter up for a swim lesson, right? That’s health equity because I’m also signing up for a lesson as well. Why? Because I never learned to swim. It’s about each generation doing better. And why didn’t I learn to swim? Because my parents were born in 1948 in the South and did not have access to swimming pools. So it’s those daily practical applications that I think about when I think about health equity. So yeah.

Rovner: Sen. Alvarado and Dr. Barnes, I want to talk about Texas a little bit since, obviously, we’re sitting here. Texas is, we try not to think about just insurance when we talk about health equity, although it’s a big deal, and in Texas it’s still a big deal as opposed to a lot of other states. What impact does Texas’ failure to, so far at least, expand Medicaid have on health equity in this state?

Barnes: Well, we know that health care and access to health care is critically important to health. It accounts for 20% of a person’s health, and nonmedical drivers account for the other 80%. But 20% is important. We still have the highest rate of uninsured. So that means that there are parts of our community that can’t get the preventive care that they need, that can’t talk to people who might connect them to social services to support their nonmedical needs. And so the larger conversation is about increasing health coverage overall in Texas. And certainly expansion of Medicaid is one piece of that. About 5 million people are uninsured right now in our state, and so we’ve got a lot of ground to cover. Affordable Care Act is one way, Medicaid expansion is another. And so a lot of work to do, for sure.

Alvarado: And I’ll pick up where you left off. Medicaid expansion has been, believe it or not, a hot political hot potato here in Texas. I’ve been filing, along with many of my colleagues, bills every session since 2009, maybe. We can’t get hearings. And no one really gives you a good explanation why. They’ll have things that really don’t make a lot of sense that there are too many strings attached. Well, somehow 40 other states don’t have that problem.

And we’ve seen that the cost that we’re leaving on the table, millions of dollars. I think the last number I saw was 2023, maybe $11 billion just there on the table; other states are utilizing it. And then here in Texas, it’s kind of complicated. I’ll just give you the elevator speech on that. But they kept the Medicaid enrollment going during the pandemic, and then afterwards they did this winding, what they called winding down, and almost 2 million people were left without Medicaid. And a good portion of that are children, and a good portion of those children are Black and brown kids who are already living in environments where they don’t have access to green space or grocery stores, fresh fruits and vegetables. So you pile all of that together and that’s why we are in this place of many uninsured, almost twice the number of the national rate, which is at 8[%]. We’re at 17[%]. Yeah, everything’s bigger in Texas especially the number of uninsured.

Rovner: So, Dr. Barnes, I want you to talk about what it is that your foundation does. I find it fascinating that even though you would think that you’re all about medical care, you’re really not all about medical care, right?

Barnes: No, that’s right. So we are committed to promoting equity by addressing health and not just health care. And so we use our resources in partnership with community members and organizations and change-makers to address factors that occur outside of the clinical setting and the doctor’s office. And representative [Sen.] Alvarado listed so many of them: housing, food security, employment, education. All of these are critically important to health. And so we use our resources to help address those needs because we know that that will set people up for a healthy life and not just a sick life that ends them up in clinical care at the very tail end of their illness. One of the things I wanted to share, I’m a physician by training, in internal medicine and primary care, and my patients taught me so much when I saw them and I prescribed medicines for diabetes or high blood pressure. It was the stories about their lives outside of the clinic that really helped me understand what was impacting their health, which is why I got into this space of health and not just the clinical side.

Rovner: Cara, you’re about to debut a project that you’ve been working on for four years that has to do with exactly this, with sort of the nonmedical implications of other things and the lack of health equity. So why don’t you tell us a little bit about it?

Anthony: Yeah, so coming up next week, we’re going to premiere a new podcast, and also it’s a documentary film, called “Silence in Sikeston.” It focuses on police violence and police killings, but looking at them not as crime stories, but more as a public health threat. Also looking at the lynchings of yesterday as a public health threat. Maybe people didn’t use those terms back then, but certainly we recognize them as such now.

And so I hope everyone checks this out because it really talks about how racism and chronic stress are linked. And so oftentimes it can weigh not only on your mental health — anxiety, depression, you can become suicidal because of these things — but also you can have physical health effects as well, higher rates of high blood pressure, cancer, et cetera. And so I’ve been traveling for the last four years to Sikeston, Missouri. It’s a small community in rural Missouri where there was a man who was lynched there in 1942. His name was Cleo Wright. This is America’s first federally investigated lynching, the first time the FBI decided to look at lynching as a federal crime. They came to Sikeston, Missouri. But the story has never really been told and not in this way, not looking at it as a public health story, because as public health reporters we’re tasked with looking at what makes a community sick, what’s harming a community, and sometimes that can be something like lynching, something like police killings. And so we’re looking at that head-on and talking about the health impacts there.

Rovner: And Sabriya, obviously this is a big project that we’ve been working on, but we’ve been working on a lot of other health equity stories that you’re sort of in charge of. So why don’t you tell us about some of those?

Rice: Yeah, certainly. And it’s a great parallel to the work that Cara’s been doing. I came to KFF in 2022, and my charge was to start up a Southern bureau and look at the health equity disparities that happen across the South. So my team ranges from Texas to Florida up until North Carolina, and we meet weekly and have conversations. And one thing I was constantly hearing from the reporters — I’m not a policy expert and I’m not a statistician, but I’m a people person and I listen to people — and my reporters were saying over and over again, “Yeah, we spoke to this expert about Medicaid expansion, but they were like, ‘Yeah, we could do that, but it’s not going to stop the root of the problem, which is racism.’”

“Yeah, we wrote about maternal mortality or infant mortality, but still at the root of this is racism.” So that term kept coming up. And so we decided this year to take a look at systemic racism in the health care system, and our series is called “Systemic Sickness,” and it looks at some of the things that Cara talked about, including policing, but we also look at redlining or the history of redlining, of public housing challenges. We’re looking modern-day, like attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in education, specifically the field of medicine. So that’s the nature of our project that we have for this year. And it’s been just a real fascinating experience.

Rovner: I think I’ve heard this come up a couple of times in the panels we’ve had this morning about some of the other issues that really impact this in a bigger way than many people think. And I think housing is definitely one of those. You talked about redlining. A lot of this is historic racism and literal redlining: “You cannot live here. If you live here, you cannot get a mortgage.” There’s been a lot of that. How significant, I assume, the problem is here in Texas?

Barnes: Yeah, it is significant in a lot of those racist structures. We continue to experience the aftereffects of those. Even today, those neighborhoods are still under-resourced, and that includes, like you mentioned, grocery stores, safe spaces to play, green spaces, good transportation options. And so those old and, I suppose, acceptable forms of structural racism that were enacted are still playing out today in the health of people.

Alvarado: It’s very important. And housing doesn’t get a lot of attention. It’s not a very glamorous or sexy issue, but I’m glad to hear presidential candidate Kamala Harris, she talked about housing and what she would like to see to build more affordable housing, or I guess we’re calling it “workforce housing” now. And then our state comptroller, Glenn Hegar, recognizing how many people we have moving to Texas all the time. And to accommodate that, we’d need about 300,000 new units or housing. So people don’t have a place to lie their head that’s comfortable and a place to cook meals. And then if they don’t have those safety nets, then their last concern is probably, “Oh, am I getting my workout in today?” Or “Am I eating enough fruits and vegetables?” when they’re in survival mode.

Rice: And I’ll piggyback on what representative [Sen.] Alvarado said. It’s hard for people to see how this kind of plays out in real time. And two of our reporters on the Southern team just recently looked at a community in Savannah, Georgia, called Yamacraw Village. It’s a public housing community that started around World War II. And historically, at that time, the residents were white. Disinvestment happened within this community over the years and the population of the community changed.

So now it’s a predominantly Black and Latino community, but what you see is a large amount of disinvestment. People can’t get things fixed, so you’re living in very unhealthy housing, when you do have housing. There’s no playgrounds, there’s no green space, there’s an extreme amount of violence. But one man told our reporters, “The walls sweat like working men.” This person moved into this community and got vouchers to be able to live there and immediately developed asthma and has been taking medication even years after he left the community. So when you think about how the system is harming people, these communities are there and they’re not being invested in. Instead, people are given things like Section 8, if they can get the vouchers, and then if you can find affordable living that will take your Section 8 voucher. So it’s a really big problem. And housing is often not talked about as a public health crisis.

Barnes: Absolutely. And not just the place that you lay your head, but high-quality housing, not substandard that actually can impact your health.

Rovner: One of the things we’ve seen, I guess in the last couple of years, are these extraordinarily hot summers. And I know the government has always helped underwrite heating assistance in the winter, but apparently air-conditioning assistance is not considered of the same importance. I just read Phoenix has been 100 degrees every day for the last hundred days. I know that here in Texas you’ve had some pretty extended heat waves. I mean, how big an issue is heat as a public health and equity issue?

Alvarado: It’s a big problem, and especially when we’ve had things like power outages, storms that we had very close to one another. We had the derecho in May and then we had followed by the Hurricane Beryl, and that was tough. I mean, people were out of power anywhere from a couple of days to 10 days, and for some, it’s life or death, especially if they have medical equipment that they have to be hooked up to. We’re going to be tackling some of those issues in this session, but our city does a good job in our county of opening cooling centers so that people have a place to go and retreat and charge their devices. But the weather is getting much more turbulent. The summers are getting hotter, the hurricane season is more active. And until people realize that there’s a reason all this is happening and people don’t want to talk about it or put policy forth that addresses what’s taking place in our environment. So they go hand in hand.

Barnes: One of the other things, as we talk about communities where there isn’t investment, is that there are these heat islands, and typically they are where people are low-income communities of color where simple things like trees being planted that could cool the temperature in the area, these neighborhoods don’t have those amenities. So there are efforts in Texas and in Houston to try to green up some of those communities, but it requires investment and attention and acknowledging that we have these disparities across the community.

Rovner: Yeah, there was a study, I think it was in Baltimore a couple of years ago, where the temperature differential was like 15 degrees. I mean, it would be 85 in the suburbs and it would be 100 in some of these sort of concrete jungles downtown where the buildings hold onto the heat. And, of course, those are places where people live and often can’t afford their utilities, and obviously their utility bills would be higher because it’s going to cost more to cool those places.

Barnes: And as representative [Sen.] Alvarado mentioned, heat, when you have chronic conditions, so the elderly in particular, these are the communities that have the greatest burden of those conditions. And so it’s particularly alarming. That need is there and we really have to pay attention to it.

Rice: One of the things we just looked at in a story was this idea of energy poverty. And one interesting factoid that I learned from that that I was unaware of myself is the idea that many of our federal policies tend to focus on cold weather and that this idea, in federal and state, so for example in North Carolina where the story was centered, there are requirements that apartments and other kind of housing that they mandate that you have heat in the winter. It’s not the same for AC in the summer, and that’s probably something that should be looked at.

Rovner: I want to talk about women. When we talk about health equity differences between men and women, where one of the first places we saw before the Affordable Care Act, insurers were allowed to charge women more simply because they were women and they lived longer and had more health expenses associated with being pregnant and having children. That was eliminated. But, obviously, there are still a lot of inequities between men and women and it’s there. I know that they’re exacerbated by race, but it’s not purely race. I mean, how big an issue is this still? Obviously, reproductive health in general, abortion in specific, is the central health issue in this year’s campaigns. So where does it fall in the pantheon of health equity?

Alvarado: I think if we had more women elected to office, definitely in Texas and in statewide positions, that things like Medicaid would pass, expansion of Medicaid. And it does matter who is at the table, who is making the decisions. And this happened just on one side of the aisle, but just 12-month postpartum for women, so that they can take advantage of Medicaid, and it finally got done. But that’s the only piece that we’ve been able to do. And they were two women, Democrat and Republican, Toni Rose and Sen. Huffman, who led that effort. And I just know if we had more women in the right places, that issues like health care wouldn’t be so partisan and divisive.

Barnes: Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. We finally got 12 months of coverage postpartum, and it’s really unfortunate that we have to piecemeal the care that women need. I think about the fact that we expect good pregnancy outcomes when someone hasn’t had care until they’re pregnant, and up until recently, only eight weeks after they were pregnant. And so yeah, there are a lot of disparities, and for many women being pregnant is their ticket to Medicaid. And so it just perpetuates this fragmented continuum of health, and women are falling out of it regularly.

Alvarado: And especially with women of color, 64% of Latinas and 62% of African American women will at some point be on Medicaid.

Anthony: I just want to chime in here too. You talk about reproductive rights. I considered, Julie, writing a personal essay about, at the time I was 35, I went on … I’m only 37 now, but as a Black woman in the U.S., going on birth control for the first time in my life. Now, I mentioned I’m a single mom, so that wasn’t always my story, but I think we’re in an era of progress and education that is still really, really important. So I just wanted to share that.

Rovner: So I want to talk a little bit about the actual inequities within medical care. One thing, Stat News has a wonderful story that’s part of a series they’re starting this week on algorithms that are embedded into care — when doctors make a diagnosis and then the algorithm comes up and shows all the things you should consider in deciding what kind of treatment. And a lot of these now have: Is the patient Black? And some of them, I think, were originally, I assume most of them, were originally born out of some sort of thought that there’s a differential in risk depending on skin color, but obviously a lot of them … have been completely overturned by science and yet they’re still there. What impact does embedded racism in medicine, in general, have on health equity?

Barnes: Yeah, specific to that, in particular, what it resulted in is individuals who had evidence of risk, because they were Black there was a higher threshold that had to be crossed before they got additional testing or additional treatment, which means that there are populations of people who didn’t get timely care because of those embedded algorithms. One of the other things, there’s not an overriding body — I guess CMS could be that overriding body — but right now no one is standing up saying, “Absolutely you cannot use race-based algorithms.” And so it’s really up to individual health systems. States could implement penalties if you use them, but right now it’s up to an individual institution, and it takes a lot to undo an algorithm and change an electronic medical record. But we are at the threshold, I think, of that beginning to happen.

Anthony: And it’s such a common issue. I spent the last few years looking particularly at kidney disease testing, and if you put a Black person’s kidney on a table and you put a white person’s kidney on the table, you would not be able to tell the difference. People really need to understand that race and biology are not the same, but for years, I mean decades, people have mixed this up and it has delayed care from people who are not getting the treatment that they need.

We wrote a story a couple of years ago about a Black man who needed a kidney, a white woman read the story and decided to donate a kidney to him, but that’s not everybody’s case. I can only write about so many patients that are in that same scenario. And so there’s still a lot of work that needs to be done, but progress is being made. The hospital in particular that we were looking at in St. Louis, they’ve made some policy changes since we published that particular article, but we still have a long way to go. I can’t say that enough. Race and biology are not the same.

Rovner: I mentioned at the top geography, and we talk about people who are grouped together because they have to be, but it’s also about where people decide to live, in rural versus urban. I mean, how can we look population-wide and try to even out, I mean, we talk constantly about the closures of rural hospitals and the difficulty of getting care in far-flung areas, and obviously Texas has a lot of far-flung areas, I know. That is another issue that sort of plays into this whole thing, right?

Alvarado: Oh, absolutely. And one of the arguments, again, this all keeps going back to Medicaid expansion, but you’re talking to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I said, your districts, some of your rural districts are suffering the most. Hospitals have shut down. They have to drive to the next big city. It might be Houston or Dallas or San Antonio, but it has, I think, disproportionately hurt rural areas. And until folks want to own that, embrace that, and try to fix it, we’re going to continue to be in this place and probably the gap will widen even more.

Rice: And I’d say we saw this kind of play out in Georgia this week. I live in Atlanta, and there was the unfortunate school shooting incident that happened there. And the community that that school is in had no hospital in that area. So the closest place would’ve been 40 miles away in either direction to Athens, Georgia, which is about 40 miles from the Barrow County and then Atlanta. So even in an incident like that, just coordinating to get people treatment in a major incident is just another example of why we need to do something, right? It’s not just Black communities or Hispanic communities. I think it’s all of us and any given moment may need access to care. And if you think about it, in light of that, 40 miles is no easy feat on Atlanta highways in rush-hour traffic or even being airlifted, it’s still a distance and you have a small window of time to save a life.

Barnes: And there’s been specific conversations in Texas about access to maternal health care in rural communities. And so again, the distance that someone would have to drive is hard for many of us to imagine, especially in a time of crisis.

Rovner: One of the other continuing issues when we talk about health equity is the desire of people to be treated by people who look like them or people who have similar backgrounds to them. That’s obviously been an issue for years that the medical community has been trying to deal with. I want to ask specifically what impact the Supreme Court’s decision banning affirmative action is going to have on the future of the medical workforce and the few strides that have been made to get more people of color, not just into medical school, but into practice.

Rice: I’d say that was pretty immediate, and especially in some of our Southern states, given the history. But I think there were immediate bans on DEI programs or dismantling of those at schools across the South. I can think of Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, even Georgia introduced a bill. It didn’t pass, but I think we saw that happen pretty immediately. And the doctors that at least reporters on my team have spoken to have said, even in their programs, they can’t even say, “We’re trying to increase the number of Black doctors or Hispanic doctors or Native American doctors.” You can’t target those groups to come to special programs, to have access to visitations to schools or that sort of thing. You can’t even say it. So they’re having to kind of circumvent how they reach people to increase the low numbers of doctors of these ethnic groups.

Alvarado: I think we’ve only begun to see the consequences that have taken place because of that. When you mentioned the medical center, we have people that come from all over the world and having physicians that they can relate to or just speaking the language, 48% of people from Houston speak other languages other than English at home. So Houston is known for being very international, very diverse, and it’s only going to continue to grow. So having the language barrier also contributes to many other issues regarding your health. But having that comfort with someone that understands your background, may understand your challenges, that’s important. And I don’t think that the people who were coming up with DEI legislation here in Texas and, those things don’t cross their mind because they’re shortsighted. They’re trying to check a box or get that “A-plus” on their whatever scorecard by whatever group in their party.

Rovner: But people think, well, a doctor is a doctor is a doctor. Why does it matter if that doctor, if you’re able to relate to that doctor, how important is it really to have a medical community that looks like the community it’s serving?

Barnes: Yeah, I would say it’s a huge trust issue. I remember having patients in my practice, African American patients, and there was a wonderful trust that we had with one another. And then I would refer them to a specialist who didn’t look like them, and they would ask me questions, “Do you really think they’re going to do the procedure that they said?” And I was just thinking, “Oh my gosh, I am taking for granted that someone would trust me.” And when we think about how we make recommendations to patients, if the trust isn’t there, why would they listen to what you had to say? And then that will, of course, put you at a disadvantage from a health perspective. And in terms of eliminating affirmative action, I don’t know the medical school data, but a lot of higher education institutions are already reporting lower numbers in their incoming classes. And that certainly is going to be the same in medical schools, nursing schools, PA schools.

Rovner: I did have in my notes that medical schools are freaked out by this.

Anthony: And it’s really …

Barnes: Absolutely.

Anthony: And what you’re talking about, and I’ve written a lot about this topic, and just to name it, we’re talking about “culturally competent care,” and culturally competent care is really, really hard to find because the numbers are low, because there has been a shift. But I think the conversation is also shifting towards culturally humble care or cultural humility in health care. So even if I can’t find a doctor who looks like me, I need someone who’s culturally humble to say, “You know what? I don’t understand everything that you’re going through as a Black woman raising a child in America, but I can admit that, I can say that out loud, and I can maybe direct you towards someone who can be more helpful. Or maybe we could just have a really candid conversation about that.” And so I just want to give people the terminology that I think could be useful if you want to learn more.

Rice: We also just did a story looking at colorism in the U.S. and the impact that that has on people. Interviewed a woman, for example, who had been bleaching her skin for all of these years, had these side effects from that, but clinicians weren’t catching it. They didn’t know to look for specific things. So there were mental health challenges there because of feeling unhappy being in her own body, but there were also manifestations on her physical health because the chemicals that she was introducing were causing harm. So I think that kind of cultural competence, someone that looked like her and could relate to her background might be like, “Wait a minute, is this what’s happening here?” And that’s what happened in the case of that particular patient.

Rovner: So at our session this morning on why does care cost so much? My colleague Noam Levey talked about something he calls a culture of greed in health care, it does seem as if every aspect of the system is or has been monetized. I mean, it really is all about the money. How does that impact health equity? I mean, you could think that if the incentives were in the right place, it might be able to help.

Alvarado: And it drives up the cost of insurance too. I mean, if you’ve ever had a loved one in the hospital, they don’t want you to bring your medications from home. So you have to take what they have there. And it is the same thing, but it’s very expensive. You can buy a bottle of Advil for 5, 6 bucks; each pill is about that much, and then it drives up cost of insurance, and it has an economic impact that trickles down to the consumer.

Barnes: And then it becomes a barrier. So if you are paying out-of-pocket and things are incredibly expensive and you also have to buy food and pay your rent, you may forgo or delay care, which again is going to leave you in a worse situation from a health standpoint and just perpetuate the disparities.

Rovner: Now we have managed-care companies who serve not just most of the Medicare population, but most of the Medicaid population, who get paid for presumably the incentive there was, you’re going to take care of these people and we’re going to pay you, and the more people you can find to take care of, the more we’re going to pay you. And in theory, they have adequate networks where people can actually find care, which is not always the case with Medicaid. It’s hard to find providers who will take Medicaid. I’ve started seeing ads for managed-care companies for people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid, the “dual eligibles.” They don’t call them that, but it’s like, “Wow, I’m looking at TV ads for dual eligibles.” Somebody must be making some amount of money off of these people. Is anything good coming from it?

Alvarado: I mean, the pharmaceutical companies are raking it in pretty good. And in some countries you can’t even have direct promotion for pharmaceuticals from the pharmaceutical company to the consumer.

Rovner: Most other countries.

Alvarado: Yeah, except I mean every commercial. I mean, you pick your drug, what is it, Skyrizi or Cialis, whatever. I mean, it’s out there.

Rovner: Yes, we all know the names of the drugs now.

Alvarado: Something for everybody.

Rovner: I’m going turn it over to questions in a minute, but before I do, I don’t want this to be a complete downer. So I would like each of you to talk about something that you’ve seen in the last year or two that’s made you optimistic about being able to at least address the issue of health equity.

Rice: I mean, the fact that we’re having these conversations more, I think, is something that brings optimism, for me. I don’t remember my family having these conversations as a kid. It was just like, “Well, this is just the way it is. Or “This is how the system is.” And I think it’s positive that we’re having conversations not just about how the system is currently, but about changing it, as Cara mentioned, for the next generation.

Barnes: As a philanthropy, I can talk about some specific investments that we’ve made that have allowed community health workers to work with women throughout their pregnancy period. And so in a small way, for those women, we have increased the opportunity for them to have a healthy outcome. But we’ve also done some policy work. We were part of a large coalition of folks pushing for 12 months of Medicaid coverage postpartum. And those system-level changes affect millions of Texans. And so again, we felt that was really an important way to change the health equity equation.

Alvarado: And thank you for your work on that. Many of us on my side of the aisle have been filing those bills to get it extended to 12 months. But again, everything goes back to politics. They weren’t going to let somebody in the minority party carry it. And at that point, you don’t care who gets the credit, just get it done. Or as we say in Texas, “Git-er-done” and take care of folks. But another thing that we’ve been talking about on our side of the aisle was the tampon tax, the pink tax, and wow, all of a sudden my colleagues on the other side thought, “Oh, that’s a good idea.” And so anyway, we didn’t get to carry it. They passed it, OK, it’s done. So we’ve got to play this game, dance this dance here, and we’ll do it. The most important thing is to make things accessible and affordable to people.

And one of the other things too, we didn’t get to talk about this much, but when you talk about the environment and health impacts, my district has so many concrete batch plants. And so we are seeing more people become aware of particulate matter and the negative impact that these facilities have. And they’re almost all, I’d say 99% all, located in African American and Latino neighborhoods. And Harris County has the largest number of concrete batch plants in any other county in Texas. And a third of those concrete batch plants are walking distance to schools and to day cares. We have more work to do in this area, but at least now the public is holding people accountable and we’re putting more pressure on the agencies that regulate these facilities.

Anthony: We often think about data and there’s negativity associated with that. But one thing that I’ve learned, particularly in the last four years, is that there’s good data too. There’s change that is happening, right? I mentioned early on in our conversation about the swim lesson with my daughter, and that’s progress, right? There’s institutional change happening as well. We talk about the algorithms and the issues there, but we know that there are institutions that have said, “Yes, this is a mistake.” I have concerns, and this is another conversation about what’s going to happen with AI. But I think that there are positive ways to look at that as well. So change is happening, and we have to think about also moving forward, and we want to tell those stories too.

Rovner: All right, well, I’m going to turn it over to the audience now. I see we already have someone waiting to ask a question. Please, before you ask your question, tell us who you are and where you’re from and please make it a question. Go ahead.

Abimisola: Hi, my name is Abimisola. I am from Nigeria, but I live in Austin, Texas. My question is about education. I feel like a big part of access and equity is education. So what are we doing to let people know that there are some services that are available to help them access the care that they need? I imagine that as, I guess, working through the pandemic, health literacy is not really a thing in the public. And so what are we doing to let people know that some of these services exist? And then also on the cultural humility end of things, what are we doing to make sure that providers are aware of this gap and how can they be helpful in their own way to make sure that equitable care does exist when people come in?

Barnes: So I think that we are at a moment of awakening when it comes to recognizing that you need trusted messengers in communities to actually engage in conversations about navigating health care systems or engaging in preventive health measures. Community health workers are really starting to have their day, and there is recent legislation that will actually allow them to be reimbursed for case management services related to their care of pregnant women. And so we are in a moment, that same legislation will also cover doulas and their case management services. But I think to your point, education, health literacy, having someone you trust who can walk you through that process is so critically important and those caregivers are finally getting the recognition that they deserve and being elevated and reimbursed. And so I think that that is a great step.

Linda Jackson: Hello, thank you for the information that you’ve provided. So I’m Linda Jackson and I’m with Huston-Tillotson University, which is a historically Black university a few miles from here. And I want to talk about the speed. One thing that happened again during the coronavirus is that because the university had systems in place, for example, the university was able to move from on-campus, on-ground, to online almost immediately with all of those funds and programs that were available. We’re in that same situation now with what we’re experiencing now, we have an increase in the number of students who want to attend college, an increase in our enrollment. We are a pipeline for the health industry, for some of the issues that we have to deal with, but the issue is that we can move quickly, but to get to all of those entities that are out there that can provide the funding that’s needed.

We have students we turned away who are waiting to get into college, and they’re interested in computer science and they’re interested in the health care industry and they’re interested in all those fields, but it’s the speed. We are here waiting, but the speed for which all of those resources have to come into place. And for example, we had entities who came to us with a doula program, with a doula idea, and we offer a certificate in the doula program to ensure that there are more doulas to provide that culturally sensitive care. And so my question is we’re here. We’re waiting. The resources need to come faster. And so I guess that’s a statement as opposed to a question.

Rovner: But thank you for raising the topic.

Barnes: I will just say, well, first off, my mother and my aunt are both graduates of Huston-Tillotson. So very excited to have you here. I think connecting the industries that need the workforce with the institutions who can provide the training is a key connection that we haven’t figured out how to do well because that’s where your resources would come to be able to support students getting trained to then fill the jobs where we have needs in the health care setting.

Rovner: And this is not just a health equity issue, this is the entire health system writ large.

Barnes: Absolutely.

Rovner: The difficulties with matching workforce needs with patient needs.

Robert Lilly: Good afternoon. Thank you very much for this lively conversation. My name is Robert Lilly. I am a criminal justice participatory defense organizer with Grassroots Leadership, and I’m also justice-impacted, formerly incarcerated, 54 years old with 21 years of my life spent in some institution or another. I want to just comment or not comment, but inquire from the two points that were made about equity. You mentioned that you wanted to, equity was about optimal health, no matter the background of the individual and also to eliminate barriers, especially for populations that are most vulnerable.

Texas has over 110 prisons, 135,000 people currently incarcerated, 600,000 every year exiting the system. Medicaid expansion is a challenge in Texas. My question before you is, in this era of mass incarceration, what options do we have? If policy can’t fix this problem, what other options exist? With the creative minds that you have, the thoughtful insights that you’re gaining from your research and reflection, how can you advise us to move, if our legislature won’t move? Do we depend on them alone to solve these problems, or is there an alternative route that supersedes them? And the last thing I’ll ask is how much of what we’re experiencing today, and we know America’s been historically racist, but how much of what we experiencing is a backlash to George Floyd?

Rovner: Oh, excellent question. Somebody want to take him on?

Anthony: I really think about if policy can’t do it, what can? And that’s where I think about for me, often it’s the institution of the Black family and starting young, what conversations do we need to have with our children as we move forward? That’s one thing that I, in particular, think about because I really think it comes down to literacy, education, being made aware, and also thinking about what can we do as individuals? But it really requires institutional change. I don’t want to act like that’s not at the core of the issue, but really want to talk about our future a lot and think about our future a lot. And so I think it starts at a really young age.

Rice: I wish we could tackle the whole iceberg all at once and just tear the whole thing down and start over. But the reality is we have to chip at it. And I think as we continue to do that, I think it starts to dismantle. And I don’t know that that offers much hope, but I think it’s kind of where we’re at and what we have to do is to keep moving because we wouldn’t have had this progress without that kind of fight.

Rovner: But … go ahead.

Rice: And vote.

Carley Deardorff: Hi, y’all. My name is Carley Deardorff, born and raised in Texas. I have lived in Texas my whole life, except I ran away to Spain for a little bit. Born in Lubbock, been in Austin for about 15 years now. I want to say one, thank you so much for your question previously. My question involves both formerly incarcerated but also aging. So aging parents, aging families. My partner and I were both raised by single moms, and so the outcomes for them, health-wise and also financially in terms of retirement and things like that are very, very slim. And so now in this next phase of life, navigating equity and health outcomes for them, it’s really scary because I don’t know. So before I cry, what do y’all have as opportunities and resources as you help someone age, and what that can look like in the space of life?

Barnes: So, thank you for being so vulnerable in talking about how incredibly challenging navigating the health care system and the systems that address nonmedical factors are for individuals. I don’t have an easy answer. There are organizations, and some that we have funded, that provide navigation services so that folks who know how to walk their way through these complicated systems can be helpful and maybe we can talk offline after we’re done. Again, they rely on trusted messengers in the communities who know what’s going on in the environment and then can actually help with the complicated side of things as well. And I think that’s probably the best bet for traversing something that doesn’t have to be as complicated as it is, but it is what it is at this point.

Meer Jumani: Do we have time for one more?

Barnes: We do.

Jumani: Perfect.

Rovner: Go ahead.

Jumani: So Meer Jumani, I work as a public health policy adviser to Commissioner Adrian Garcia, Harris County, Precinct 2. Sen. Alvarado’s District and Precinct 2 overlap a ton, but Precinct 2 has approximately 1.1 million constituents, of which 65% are Hispanic. We also have some of the most vast health disparities ranging from the highest mortality rate to the lowest home ownership rate. We touched on that amongst others, and despite launching programs ranging from free community-based clinics to lead abatement programs, we see a trend that these are most underutilized by the most vulnerable populations. So my question is, can you speak to what measures can be taken or what folks are not doing to change the mindset of these populations from a curative mindset to a preventative mindset?

Rice: I think it’s, as you mentioned before, trust, right? Those community navigators and making sure they’re out there giving voice to the community and sharing what resources are there. During covid, there was a community in northeast Georgia with a large immigrant population, and they actually ended up having some of the lowest rates of covid for the state because of those community navigators. They really hit the ground and it was kind of amazing what they did, going door to door if they had to, having weekly events and having conversations, making screenings accessible to everyone, and having navigators that spoke various different languages. I think those kind of things continue to help with that kind of outreach.

Anthony: I totally agree. And acknowledging painful history too. I think we have to realize who is tasked to do the fixing, and are we really giving agency and empowering those that need help the most? I’m thinking about particularly in Sikeston, Missouri, where the police chief tried to institute a program where people were to come, particularly Black residents in town. He wanted to have meetings with them and have conversations, but it just didn’t take off. But part of the reason why is because the level of mistrust, but also some acknowledgment of the history of racial violence that had gone on in the past in that community that people were still trying to heal from today. So I think that there’s so much work that has to be done in institutions. One of the first steps that they can take is acknowledging painful history as a way to move forward because we have to acknowledge our pain to have some joy too.

Rovner: I think that’s a wonderful place to leave it. I want to thank our panel so much and thank you to the audience for your great questions.

I hasten to add, if you enjoyed the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d always appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our technical guru back in Washington, D.C., Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. And thanks to the kind folks here at TribFest for helping us put this all together. We’ll be back in D.C. with our regular panel and all the news on Sept. 12. Until then, everyone, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).