KFF Health News' 'What the Health?': Supreme Court Upholds Bans on Gender-Affirming Care
The Host
Julie Rovner
KFF Health News
Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KFF Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, “What the Health?” A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book “Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z,” now in its third edition.
The Supreme Court this week ruled in favor of Tennessee’s law banning most gender-affirming care for minors — a law similar to those in two dozen other states.
Meanwhile, the Senate is still hoping to complete work on its version of President Donald Trump’s huge budget reconciliation bill before the July Fourth break. But deeper cuts to the Medicaid program than those included in the House-passed bill could prove difficult to swallow for moderate senators.
This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Victoria Knight of Axios, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.
Panelists
Victoria Knight
Axios
Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico
Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call
Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:
- The Supreme Court’s ruling on gender-affirming care for transgender minors was relatively limited in its scope. The majority did not address the broader question about whether transgender individuals are protected under federal anti-discrimination laws and, as with the court’s decision overturning the constitutional right to an abortion, left states the power to determine what care trans youths may receive.
- The Senate GOP unveiled its version of the budget reconciliation bill this week. Defying expectations that senators would soften the bill’s impact on health care, the proposal would make deeper cuts to Medicaid, largely at the expense of hospitals and other providers. Republican senators say those cuts would allow them more flexibility to renew and extend many of Trump’s tax cuts.
- The Medicare trustees are out this week with a new forecast for the program that covers primarily those over age 65, predicting insolvency by 2033 — even sooner than expected. There was bipartisan support for including a crackdown on a provider practice known as upcoding in the reconciliation bill, a move that could have saved a bundle in government spending. But no substantive cuts to Medicare spending ultimately made it into the legislation.
- With the third anniversary of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade approaching, the movement to end abortion has largely coalesced around one goal: stopping people from accessing the abortion pill mifepristone.
Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:
Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “The Bureaucrat and the Billionaire: Inside DOGE’s Chaotic Takeover of Social Security,” by Alexandra Berzon, Nicholas Nehamas, and Tara Siegel Bernard.
Victoria Knight: The New York Times’ “They Asked an A.I. Chatbot Questions. The Answers Sent Them Spiraling,” by Kashmir Hill.
Alice Miranda Ollstein: Wired’s “What Tear Gas and Rubber Bullets Do to the Human Body,” by Emily Mullin.
Sandhya Raman: North Carolina Health News and The Charlotte Ledger’s “Ambulance Companies Collect Millions by Seizing Wages, State Tax Refunds,” by Michelle Crouch.
Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:
- KFF’s “KFF Health Tracking Poll: Views of the One Big Beautiful Bill,” by Ashley Kirzinger, Lunna Lopes, Marley Presiado, Julian Montalvo III, and Mollyann Brodie.
- The Associated Press’ “Trump Administration Gives Personal Data of Immigrant Medicaid Enrollees to Deportation Officials,” by Kimberly Kindy and Amanda Seitz.
- The Guardian’s “VA Hospitals Remove Politics and Marital Status From Guidelines Protecting Patients From Discrimination,” by Aaron Glantz.
click to open the transcript
Transcript: Supreme Court Upholds Bans on Gender-Affirming Care
[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 Friday, June 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 Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.
Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.
Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.
Sandhya Raman: Good morning.
Rovner: And Victoria Knight of Axios News.
Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone.
Rovner: No interview this week but more than enough news to make up for it, so we will go right to it. It is June. That means it is time for the Supreme Court to release its biggest opinions of the term. On Wednesday, the justices upheld Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming medical care for trans minors. And presumably that means similar laws in two dozen other states can stand as well. Alice, what does this mean in real-world terms?
Ollstein: So, this is a blow to people’s ability to access gender-affirming care as minors, even if their parents support them transitioning. But it’s not necessarily as restrictive a ruling as it could have been. The court could have gone farther. And so supporters of access to gender-affirming care see a silver lining in that the court didn’t go far enough to rule that all laws discriminating against transgender people are fine and constitutional. A few justices more or less said that in their separate opinions, but the majority opinion just stuck with upholding this law, basically saying that it doesn’t discriminate based on gender or transgender status.
Rovner: Which feels a little odd.
Ollstein: Yes. So, obviously, many people have said, How can you say that laws that only apply to transgender people are not discriminatory? So, been some back-and-forth about that. But the majority opinion said, Well, we don’t have to reach this far and decide right now if laws that discriminate against transgender people are constitutional, because this law doesn’t. They said it discriminates based on diagnosis — so anyone of any gender who has the diagnosis of gender dysphoria for medications, hormones, that’s not a gender discrimination. But obviously the only people who do have those diagnoses are transgender, and so it was a logic that the dissenters, the three progressive dissenters, really ripped into.
Rovner: And just to be clear, we’ve heard about, there are a lot of laws that ban sort of not-reversible types of treatments for minors, but you could take hormones or puberty blockers. This Tennessee law covers basically everything for trans care, right?
Ollstein: That’s right, but only the piece about medications was challenged up to the Supreme Court, not the procedures and surgeries, which are much more rare for minors anyways. But it is important to note that some of the conservatives on the court said they would’ve gone further, and they basically said, This law does discriminate against transgender kids, and that is fine with us. And they said the court should have gone further and made that additional argument, which they did not at this time.
Rovner: Well, I’m sure the court will get another chance sometime in the future. While we’re on the subject of gender-affirming care in the courts, in Texas on Wednesday, conservative federal district judge Matthew Kacsmaryk — that’s the same judge who unsuccessfully tried to repeal the FDA’s [Food and Drug Administration’s] approval of the abortion pill a couple of years ago — has now ruled that the Biden administration’s expansion of the HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act] medical privacy rules to protect records on abortion and gender-affirming care from being used for fishing expeditions by conservative prosecutors was an overreach, and he slapped a nationwide injunction on those rules. What could this mean if it’s ultimately upheld?
Ollstein: I kind of see this in some ways like the Trump administration getting rid of the EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act] guidance, where the underlying law is still there. This is sort of an interpretation and a guidance that was put out on top of it, saying, We interpret HIPAA, which has been around a long time, to apply in these contexts, because we’re in this brave new world where we don’t have Roe v. Wade anymore and states are seeking records from other states to try to prosecute people for circumventing abortion bans. And so, that wasn’t written into statute before, because that never happened before.
And so the Biden administration was attempting to respond to things like that by putting out this rule, which has now been blocked nationwide. I’m sure litigation will continue. There are also efforts in the courts to challenge HIPAA more broadly. And so, I would be interested in tracking how this plays into that.
Rovner: Yeah. There’s plenty of efforts sort of on this front. And certainly, with the advent of AI [artificial intelligence], I think that medical privacy is going to play a bigger role sort of as we go forward. All right. Moving on. While the Supreme Court is preparing to wrap up for the term, Congress is just getting revved up. Next up for the Senate is the budget reconciliation, quote, “Big Beautiful Bill,” with most of President [Donald] Trump’s agenda in it. This week, the Senate Finance Committee unveiled its changes to the House-passed bill, and rather than easing back on the Medicaid cuts, as many had expected in a chamber where just a few moderates can tank the entire bill, the Finance version makes the cuts even larger. Do we have any idea what’s going on here?
Knight: Well, I think mostly they want to give themselves more flexibility in order to pursue some of the tax policies that President Trump really wants. And so they need more savings, basically, to be able to do that and be able to do it for a longer amount of years. And so that’s kind of what I’ve heard, is they wanted to give themselves more room to play around with the policy, see what fits where. But a lot of people were surprised because the Senate is usually more moderate on things, but in this case I think it’s partially because they specifically looked at a provision called provider taxes. It’s a way that states can help fund their Medicaid programs, and so it’s a tax levied on providers. So I think they see that as maybe — it could still affect people’s benefits, but it’s aimed at providers — and so maybe that’s part of it as well.
Rovner: Well, of course aiming at providers is not doing them very much good, because hospitals are basically freaking out over this. Now there is talk of creating a rural hospital slush fund to maybe try to quell some of the complaints from hospitals and make some of those moderates feel better about voting for a bill that the Congressional Budget Office still says takes health insurance and food aid from the poor to give tax cuts to the rich. But if the Senate makes a slush fund big enough to really protect those hospitals, wouldn’t that just eliminate the Medicaid savings that they need to pay for those tax cuts, Victoria? That’s what you were just saying. That’s why they made the Medicaid cuts bigger.
Knight: Yeah. I think there’s quite a few solutions that people are throwing around and proposing. Yeah, but, exactly. Depending on if they do a provider relief fund, yeah, then the savings may need to go to that. I’ve also heard — I was talking to senators last week, and some of them were like, I’d rather just go back to the House’s version. So the House’s version of the bill put a freeze on states’ ability to raise the provider tax, but the Senate version incrementally lowers the amount of provider tax they can levy over years. The House just freezes it and doesn’t allow new ones to go higher. Some senators are like: Actually, can we just do that, go back to that? And we could live with that.
Even Sen. Josh Hawley, who has been one of the biggest vocal voices on concern for rural hospitals and concern for Medicaid cuts, he told me, Freeze would be OK with me. And so, I don’t know. I could see them maybe doing that, but we’ll see. There’s probably more negotiations going on over the weekend, and they’re also going to start the “Byrd bath” procedure, which basically determines whether provisions in the bill are related to the budget or not and can stay in the bill. And so, there’s actually gender-affirming care and abortion provisions in the bill that may get thrown out because of that. So—
Rovner: Yeah, this is just for those who don’t follow reconciliation the way we do, the “Byrd bath,” named for the former Sen. [Robert] Byrd, who put this rule in that said, Look, if you’re going to do this big budget bill with only 50 votes, it’s got to be related to the budget. So basically, the parliamentarian makes those determinations. And what we call the “Byrd bath” is when those on both sides of a provision that’s controversial go to the parliamentarian in advance and make their case. And the parliamentarian basically tells them in private what she’s going to do — like, This can stay in, or, This will have to go out. If the parliamentarian rules it has to go out, then it needs to overcome a budget point of order that needs 60 votes. So basically, that’s why stuff gets thrown out, unless they think it’s popular enough that it could get 60 votes. And sorry, that’s my little civics lesson for the day. Finish what you were saying, Victoria.
Knight: No, that was a perfect explanation. Thank you. But I was just saying, yeah, I think that there are still some negotiations going on for the Medicaid stuff. And where also, you have to remember, this has to go back to the House. And so it passed the House with the provider tax freeze, and that still required negotiations with some of the more moderate members of House Republicans. And some of them started expressing their concern about the Senate going further. And so they still need to — it has to go back through the House again, so they need to make these Senate moderates happy and House moderates happy. There’s also the fiscal conservatives that want deeper cuts. So there’s a lot of people within the caucus that they need to strike a balance. And so, I don’t know if this will be the final way the bill looks yet.
Rovner: Although, I think I say this every week, we have all of these Republicans saying: I won’t vote for this bill. I won’t vote for this bill. And then they inevitably turn around and vote for this bill. Do we believe that any of these people really would tank this bill?
Knight: That’s a great point. Yeah. Sandhya, go ahead.
Raman: There are at least a couple that I don’t think, anything that we do, they’re not going to change their mind. There is no courting of Rep. [Thomas] Massie in the House, because he’s not going to vote for it. I feel like in the Senate it’s going to be really hard to get Rand Paul on board, just because he does not want to raise the deficit. I think the others, it’s a little bit more squishy, depends kind of what the parliamentarian pulls out. And I guess also one thing I’m thinking about is if the things they pull out are big cost-savers and they have to go back to the drawing board to generate more savings. We’ve only had a few of the things that they’ve advised on so far, but it’s not health, and we still need to see — health are the big points. So, I think—
Rovner: Well, they haven’t started the “Byrd bath” on the Finance provisions—
Raman: Yes, or—
Rovner: —which is where all the health stuff is.
Raman: Yeah.
Knight: But that is supposed to be over the weekend. It’s supposed to start over the weekend.
Raman: Yes.
Rovner: Right.
Raman: Yeah. So, I think, depending on that, we will see. Historically, we have had people kind of go back and forth. And even with the House, there were people that voted for it that then now said, Well, I actually don’t support that anymore. So I think just going back to just what the House said might not be the solution, either. They have to find some sort of in-between before their July Fourth deadline.
Rovner: I was just going to say, so does this thing happen before July Fourth? I noticed that that Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff said: Continue. It needs to be on the president’s desk by July Fourth. Which seems pretty nigh impossible. But I could see it getting through the Senate by July Fourth. I’m seeing some nods. Is that still the goal?
Knight: Yeah. I think that’s the goal. That’s what Senate Majority Leader [John] Thune has been telling people. He wants to try to pass it by mid-, or I think start the process by, midweek. And then it’s going to have to go through a “vote-a-rama.” So Democrats will be able to offer a ton of amendments. It’ll probably go through the night, and that’ll last a while. And so, I saw some estimate, maybe it’ll get passed next weekend through the Senate, but that’s probably if everything goes as it’s supposed to go. So, something could mess that up.
But, yeah, I think the factor here that has — I think everyone’s kind of been like: They’re not going to be able to do it. They’re not going to be able to do it. With the House, especially — the House is so rowdy. But then, when Trump calls people and tells them to vote for it, they do it. There’s a few, yeah, like Rand Paul and Massie — they’re basically the only ones that will not vote when Trump tells them to. But other than that — so if he wants it done, I do think he can help push to get it done.
Rovner: Yeah. I noticed one change, as I was going through, in the Senate bill from the House bill is that they would raise the debt ceiling to $5 trillion. It’s like, that’s a pretty big number. Yeah. I’m thinking that alone is what says Rand Paul is a no. Before we move on, one more thing I feel like we can’t repeat enough: This bill doesn’t just cut Medicaid spending. It also takes aim at the Affordable Care Act and even Medicare. And a bunch of new polls this week show that even Republicans aren’t super excited about this bill. Are Republican members of Congress going to notice this at some point? Yeah, the president is popular, but this bill certainly isn’t.
Raman: When you look at some of the town halls that they’ve had — or tried to have — over the last couple months and then scaled back because there was a lot of pushback directly on this, the Medicaid provisions, they have to be aware. But I think if you look at that polling, if you look at the people that identify as MAGA within Republicans, it’s popular for them. It’s just more broadly less popular. So I think that’s part of it, but—
Ollstein: I think that people are very opposed to the policies in the bill, but I also think people are very overwhelmed and distracted right now. There’s a lot going on, and so I’m not sure there will be the same national focus on this the way there was in 2017 when people really rallied in huge ways to protect the Affordable Care Act and push Congress not to overturn it. And so I think maybe that could be a factor in that outrage not manifesting as much. I also think that’s a reason they’re trying to do this quickly, that July Fourth deadline, before those protest movements have an opportunity to sort of organize and coalesce.
Just real quickly on the rural hospital slush fund, I saw some smart people comparing it to a throwback, the high-risk pools model, in that unless you pour a ton of funding into it, it’s not going to solve the problem. And if you pour a ton of funding into it, you don’t have the savings that created the problem in the first place, the cuts. And all that is to say also, how do we define rural? A lot of suburban and urban hospitals are also really struggling currently and would be subject to close. And so now you get into the pitting members and districts against each other, because some people’s hospitals might be saved and others might be left out in the cold. And so I just think it’s going to be messy going forward.
Rovner: I spent a good part of the late ’80s and early ’90s pulling out of bills little tiny provisions that would get tucked in to reclassify hospitals as rural so they could qualify, because there are already a lot of programs that give more money to rural hospitals to keep them open. Sorry, Victoria, we should move on, but you wanted to say one more thing?
Knight: Oh, yeah. No. I was just going to say, going back to the unpopularity of the bill based on polling, and I think that we’ll see at least Democrats — if Republicans get this done and they have the work requirements and the other cuts to Medicaid in the bill, cuts to ACA, no renewal of premium tax credits — I think Democrats will really try to make the midterms about this, right? We already are seeing them messaging about it really hardcore, and obviously the Democrats are trying to find their way right now post-[Joe] Biden, post-[Kamala] Harris. So I think they’ll at least try to make this bill the thing and see if it’s unpopular with the general public, what Republicans did with health care on this. So we’ll see if that works for them, but I think they’re going to try.
Rovner: Yeah, I think you’re right. Well, speaking of Medicare, we got the annual trustees report this week, and the insolvency date for Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund has moved up to 2033. That’s three years sooner than predicted last year. Yet there’s nothing in the budget reconciliation bill that would address that, not even a potentially bipartisan effort to go after upcoding in Medicare Advantage that we thought the Finance Committee might do, that would save money for Medicare that insurers are basically overcharging the government for. What happened to the idea of going after Medicare Advantage overpayments?
Knight: My general vibe I got from asking senators was that Trump said, We’re not touching Medicare in this bill. He did not want that to happen. And I think, again, maybe potentially thinking about the midterms, just the messaging on that, touching Medicare, it kind of always goes where they don’t want to touch Medicare, because it’s older people, but Medicaid is OK, even though it’s poor people.
Rovner: And older people.
Ollstein: And they are touching Medicare in the bill anyway.
Rovner: Thank you. I know. I think that’s the part that makes my head swim. It’s like, really? There are several things that actually touch Medicare in this bill, but the thing that they could probably save a good chunk of money on and that both parties agree on is the thing that they’re not doing.
Knight: Exactly. It was very bipartisan.
Rovner: Yes. It was very bipartisan, and it’s not there. All right. Moving on. Elon Musk has gone back to watching his SpaceX rockets blow up on the launchpad, which feels like a fitting metaphor for what’s been left behind at the Department of Health and Human Services following some of the DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] cuts. On Monday, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that billions of dollars in cuts to about 800 NIH [National Institutes of Health] research grants due to DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] were, quote, “arbitrary and capricious” and wrote, quote, “I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this.” And mind you, this was a judge who was appointed by [President] Ronald Reagan. So what happens now? It’s been months since these grants were terminated, and even though the judge has ordered the funding restored, this obviously isn’t the last word, and one would expect the administration’s going to appeal, right? So these people are just supposed to hang out and wait to see if their research gets to continue?
Raman: This has been a big thing that has come up in all of the appropriations hearings we’ve had so far this year, that even though the gist of that is to look forward at the next year’s appropriations, it’s been a big topic of just: There is funding that we as Congress have already appropriated for this. Why isn’t it getting distributed? So I think that will definitely be something that they push back up on the next ones of those. Some of the different senators have said that they’ve been looking into it and how it’s been affecting their districts. So I would say that. But I think the White House in response to that called the decision political, which I thought was interesting given, like you said, it was a Reagan appointee that said this. So it’ll definitely be something that I think will be appealed and be a major issue.
Ollstein: Yeah, and the folks I’ve talked to who’ve been impacted by this stress that you can’t flip funding on and off like a switch and expect research to continue just fine. Once things are halted, they’re halted. And in a lot of cases, it is irreversible. Samples are thrown out. People are laid off. Labs are shut down. Even if there’s a ruling that reverses the policy, that often comes too late to make a difference. And at the same time, people are not waiting around to see how this back-and-forth plays out. People are getting actively recruited by universities and other countries saying: Hey, we’re not going to defund you suddenly. Come here. And they’re moving to the private sector. And so I think this is really going to have a long impact no matter what happens, a long tail.
Rovner: And yet we got another reminder this week of the major advances that federally funded research can produce, with the FDA approval of a twice-a-year shot that can basically prevent HIV infection. Will this be able to make up maybe for the huge cuts to HIV programs that this administration is making?
Raman: It’s only one drug, and we have to see what the price is, what cost—
Rovner: So far the price is huge. I think I saw it was going to be like $14,000 a shot.
Raman: Which means that something like PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] is still going to be a lot more affordable for different groups, for states, for relief efforts. So I think that it’s a good step on the research front, but until the price comes down, the other tools in the toolbox are going to be a lot more feasible to do.
Rovner: Yeah. So much for President Trump’s goal to end HIV. So very first-term. All right. Well, turning to abortion, it’s been almost exactly three years since the Supreme Court overturned the nationwide right to abortion in the Dobbs case. In that time we’ve seen abortion outlawed in nearly half the states but abortions overall rise due to the expanded use of abortion medication. We’ve seen doctors leaving states with bans, for fear of not being able to provide needed care for patients with pregnancy complications. And we’ve seen graduating medical students avoiding taking residencies in those states for the same reason. Alice, what’s the next front in the battle over abortion in the U.S.?
Ollstein: It’s been one of the main fronts, even before Dobbs, but it’s just all about the pills right now. That’s really where all of the attention is. So whether that’s efforts ongoing in the courts back before our friend Kacsmaryk to try to challenge the FDA’s policies around the pills and impose restrictions nationwide, there’s efforts at the state level. There’s agitation for Congress to do something, although I think that’s the least likely option. I think it’s much more likely that it’s going to come from agency regulation or from the courts or from states. So I would put Congress last on the list of actors here. But I think that’s really it. And I think we’re also seeing the same pattern that we see in gender-affirming care battles, where there’s a lot of focus on what minors can access, what children can access, and that then expands to be a policy targeting people of any age.
So I think it’s going to be a factor. One thing I think is going to slow down significantly are these ballot initiatives in the states. There’s only a tiny handful of states left that haven’t done it yet and have the ability to do it. A lot of states, it’s not even an option. So I would look at Idaho for next year, and Nevada. But I don’t think you’re going to see the same storm of them that you have seen the last few years. And part of that is, like I said, there’s just fewer left that have the ability. But also some people have soured on that as a tactic and feel that they haven’t gotten the bang for the buck, because those campaigns are extremely expensive, extremely resource-intensive. And there’s been frustration that, in Missouri, for instance, it’s sort of been — the will of the people has sort of been overturned by the state government, and that’s being attempted in other states as well. And so it has seemed to people like a very expensive and not reliable protection, although I’m not sure in some states what the other option would even be.
Rovner: Of course the one thing that is happening on Capitol Hill is that the House Judiciary Committee last week voted to repeal the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE. Now this law doesn’t just protect abortion clinics but also anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers. This feels like maybe not the best timing for this sort of thing, especially in light of the shootings of lawmakers in Minnesota last weekend, where the shooter reportedly had in his car a list of abortion providers and abortion rights supporters. Might that slow down this FACE repeal effort?
Ollstein: I think it already was going to be an uphill battle in the Senate and even maybe passing the full House, because even some conservatives say, Well, I don’t know if we should get rid of the FACE Act, because the FACE Act also applies to conservative crisis pregnancy centers. And lest we forget, only a few short weeks ago, an IVF [in vitro fertilization] clinic was bombed, and it would’ve applied in that situation, too. And so some conservatives are divided on whether or not to get rid of the FACE Act. And so I don’t know where it is going forward, but I think these recent instances of violence certainly are not helping the efforts, and the Trump administration has already said they’re not really going to enforce FACE against people who protest outside of abortion clinics. And so that takes some of the heat off of the conservatives who want to get rid of it. Of course, they say it shouldn’t be left for a future administration to enforce, as the Biden administration did.
Raman: It also applies to churches, which I think if you are deeply religious that could also be a point of contention for you. But, yeah, I think just also with so much else going on and the fact that they’ve kind of slowed down on taking some of these things up for the whole chamber to vote on outside of in January, I don’t really see it coming up in the immediate future for a vote.
Rovner: Well, at the same time, there are efforts in the other direction, although the progress on that front seems to be happening in other countries. The British Parliament this week voted to decriminalize basically all abortions in England and Wales, changing an 1861 law. And here on this side of the Atlantic, four states are petitioning the FDA to lift the remaining restrictions on the abortion pill, mifepristone, even as — Alice, as you mentioned — abortion foes argue for its approval to be revoked. You said that the abortion rights groups are shying away from these ballot measures even if they could do it. What is going to be their focus?
Ollstein: Yeah, and I wouldn’t say they’re shying away from it. I’ve just heard a more divided view as a tactic and whether it’s worth it or not. But I do think that these court battles are really going to be where a lot is decided. That’s how we got to where we are now in the first place. And so the effort to get rid of the remaining restrictions on the abortion pill, the sort of back-and-forth tug here, that’s also been going on for years and years, and so I think we’re going to see that continue as well. And I think there’s also going to be, parallel to that, a sort of PR war. And I think we saw that recently with anti-abortion groups putting out their own not-peer-reviewed research to sort of bolster their argument that abortion pills are dangerous. And so I think you’re going to see more things like that attempting to — as one effort goes on in court, another effort in parallel in the court of public opinion to make people view abortion pills as something to fear and to want to restrict.
Rovner: All right. Well, finally this week, a couple of stories that just kind of jumped out at me. First, the AP [Associated Press] is reporting that Medicaid officials, over the objections of some at the agency, have turned over to the Department of Homeland Security personal data on millions of Medicaid beneficiaries, including those in states that allow noncitizens to enroll even if they’re not eligible for federal matching funds, so states that use their own money to provide insurance to these people. That of course raises the prospect of DHS using that information to track down and deport said individuals. But on a broader level, one of the reasons Medicaid has been expanded for emergencies and in some cases for noncitizens is because those people live here and they get sick. And not only should they be able to get medical care because, you know, humanity, but also because they may get communicable diseases that they can spread to their citizen neighbors and co-workers. Is this sort of the classic case of cutting off your nose despite your face?
Ollstein: I think we saw very clearly during covid and during mpox and measles, yes. What impacts one part of the population impacts the whole population, and we’re already seeing that these immigration crackdowns are deterring people, even people who are legally eligible for benefits and services staying away from that. We saw that during Trump’s first term with the public charge rule that led to people disenrolling in health programs and avoiding services. And that effect continued. There’s research out of UCLA showing that effect continued even after the Biden administration got rid of the policy. And so fear and the chilling effect can really linger and have an impact and deter people who are citizens, are legal immigrants, from using that as well. It’s a widespread impact.
Rovner: And of course, now we see the Trump administration revoking the status of people who came here legally and basically declaring them illegal after the fact. Some of this chilling effect is reasonable for people to assume. Like the research being cut off, even if these things are ultimately reversed, there’s a lot of — depends whether you consider it damage or not — but a lot of the stuff is going to be hard. You’re not going to be able to just resume, pick up from where you were.
Ollstein: And one concern I’ve been hearing particularly is around management of bird flu, since a lot of legal and undocumented workers work in agriculture and have a higher likelihood of being exposed. And so if they’re deterred from seeking testing, seeking treatment, that could really be dangerous for the whole population.
Rovner: Yeah. It is all about health. It is always all about health. All right. Well, the last story this week is from The Guardian, and it’s called “VA Hospitals Remove Politics and Marital Status From Guidelines Protecting Patients From Discrimination.” And it’s yet another example of how purging DEI language can at least theoretically get you in trouble. It’s not clear if VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] personnel can now actually discriminate against people because of their political party or because they’re married or not married. The administration says other safeguards are still in place, but it is another example of how sweeping changes can shake people’s confidence in government programs. I imagine the idea here is to make people worried about discrimination and therefore less likely to seek care, right?
Raman: It’s also just so unusual. I have not heard of anything like this before in anything that we’ve been reporting, where your political party is pulled into this. It just seems so out of the realm of what a provider would need to know about you to give you care. And then I could see the chilling effect in the same way, where if someone might want to be active on some issue or share their views, they might be more reluctant to do so, because they know they have to get care. And if that could affect their ability to do so, if they would have to travel farther to a different VA hospital, even if they aren’t actually denying people because of this, that chilling effect is going to be something to watch.
Rovner: And this is, these are not sort of theoretical things. There was a case some years ago about a doctor, I think he was in Kentucky, who wouldn’t prescribe birth control to women who weren’t married. So there was reason for having these protections in there, even though they are not part of federal anti-discrimination law, which is what the Trump administration said. Why are these things in there? They’re not required, so we’re going to take them out. That’s basically what this fight is over. But it’s sort of an — I’m sure there are other places where this is happening. We just haven’t seen it yet.
All right, well, that is this week’s news. Now it’s 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. Victoria, why don’t you go first this week?
Knight: Sure thing. My extra credit, it’s from The New York Times. The title is, “They Asked an A.I. Chatbot Questions. The Answers Sent Them Spiraling,” by Kashmir Hill, who covers technology at The Times. I had seen screenshots of this article being shared on X a bunch last week, and I was like, “I need to read this.”
Basically it shows that different people who, they may be going through something, they may have a lot of stress, or they may already have a mental health condition, and they start messaging ChatGPT different things, then ChatGPT can kind of feed into their own delusions and their own misaligned thinking. That’s because that’s kind of how ChatGPT is built. It’s built to be, like, they call it in the story, like a sycophant. Is that how you say it? So it kind of is supposed to react positively to what you’re saying and kind of reinforce what you’re saying. And so if you’re feeding it delusions, it will feed delusions back. And so it was really scary because real-life people were impacted by this. There was one individual who thought he was talking to — had found an entity inside of ChatGPT named Juliet, and then he thought that OpenAI killed her. And so then he ended up basically being killed by police that came to his house. It was just — yeah, there was a lot of real-life effects from talking to ChatGPT and having your own delusions reinforced. So, and so it was just an effect of ChatGPT on real-life people that I don’t know if we’ve seen illustrated in a news story yet. And so it was very illuminating, yeah.
Rovner: Yeah. Not scary much. Sandhya.
Raman: My extra credit was “Ambulance Companies Collect Millions by Seizing Wages, State Tax Refunds.” It’s by Michelle Crouch for The Charlotte Ledger [and North Carolina Health News]. It’s a story about how some different ambulance patients from North Carolina are finding out that their income gets tapped for debt collection by the state’s EMS agencies, which are government entities, mostly. So the state can take through the EMS up to 10% of your monthly paycheck, or pull from your bank account higher than that, or pull from your tax refunds or lottery winnings. And it’s taking some people a little bit by surprise after they’ve tried to pay off this care and having to face this, but something that the agencies are also saying is necessary to prevent insurers from underpaying them.
Rovner: Oh, sigh.
Raman: Yeah.
Rovner: The endless stream of really good stories on this subject. Alice.
Ollstein: So I chose this piece in Wired by Emily Mullin called “What Tear Gas and Rubber Bullets Do to the Human Body,” thinking a lot about my hometown of Los Angeles, which is under heavy ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] enforcement and National Guard and Marines and who knows who else. So this article is talking about the health impacts of so-called less-lethal police tactics like rubber bullets, like tear gas. And it is about how not only are they sometimes actually lethal — they can kill people and have — but also they have a lot of lingering impacts, especially tear gas. It can exacerbate respiratory problems and even cause brain damage. And so it’s being used very widely and, in some people’s view, indiscriminately right now. And there should be more attention on this, as it can impact completely innocent bystanders and press and who knows who else.
Rovner: Yeah. There’s a long distance between nonlethal and harmless, which I think this story illustrates very well. My extra credit this week is also from The New York Times. It’s called “The Bureaucrat and the Billionaire: Inside DOGE’s Chaotic Takeover of Social Security,” by Alexandra Berzon, Nicholas Nehamas, and Tara Siegel Bernard. It’s about how the White House basically forced Social Security officials to peddle a false narrative that said 40% of calls to the agency’s customer service lines were from scammers — they were not — how DOGE misinterpreted Social Security data and gave a 21-year-old intern access to basically everyone’s personal Social Security information, and how the administration shut down some Social Security offices to punish lawmakers who criticized the president. This is stuff we pretty much knew was happening at the time, and not just in Social Security. But The New York Times now has the receipts. It’s definitely worth reading.
OK. That is this week’s show. Thanks as always to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. Also, 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. You can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me still on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you guys hanging these days? Sandhya.
Raman: @SandhyaWrites on X and the same on Bluesky.
Rovner: Alice.
Ollstein: @alicemiranda on Bluesky and @AliceOllstein on X.
Rovner: Victoria.
Knight: I am @victoriaregisk on X.
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).
1 month 1 week ago
Courts, Health Care Costs, Health Industry, Insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, Multimedia, Pharmaceuticals, Rural Health, States, Abortion, Children's Health, Hospitals, KFF Health News' 'What The Health?', LGBTQ+ Health, Podcasts, Privacy, Tennessee, texas, Transgender Health, Trump Administration, U.S. Congress, Veterans' Health
KFF Health News' 'What the Health?': RFK Jr. Upends Vaccine Policy, After Promising He Wouldn’t
The Host
Julie Rovner
KFF Health News
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.
After explicitly promising senators during his confirmation hearing that he would not interfere in scientific policy over which Americans should receive which vaccines, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. this week fired every member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the group of experts who help the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention make those evidence-based judgments. Kennedy then appointed new members, including vaccine skeptics, prompting alarm from the broader medical community.
Meanwhile, over at the National Institutes of Health, some 300 employees — many using their full names — sent a letter of dissent to the agency’s director, Jay Bhattacharya, saying the administration’s policies “undermine the NIH mission, waste our public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.”
This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, and Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine.
Panelists
Anna Edney
Bloomberg News
Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet
@sarahkarlin-smith.bsky.social
Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico
Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:
- After removing all 17 members of the vaccine advisory committee, Kennedy on Wednesday announced eight picks to replace them — several of whom lack the expertise to vet vaccine research and at least a couple who have spoken out against vaccines. Meanwhile, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, the Republican head of the chamber’s health committee, has said little, despite the fact that Kennedy’s actions violate a promise he made to Cassidy during his confirmation hearing not to touch the vaccine panel.
- In other vaccine news, the Department of Health and Human Services has canceled private-sector contracts exploring the use of mRNA technology in developing vaccines for bird flu and HIV. The move raises concerns about the nation’s readiness against developing and potentially devastating health threats.
- Hundreds of NIH employees took the striking step of signing a letter known as the “Bethesda Declaration,” protesting Trump administration policies that they say undermine the agency’s resources and mission. It is rare for federal workers to use their own names to voice public objections to an administration, let alone President Donald Trump’s, signaling the seriousness of their concerns.
- Lawmakers have been considering adding Medicare changes to the tax-and-spend budget reconciliation legislation now before the Senate — specifically, targeting the use of what’s known as “upcoding.” Curtailing the practice, through which medical providers effectively inflate diagnoses and procedures to charge more, has bipartisan support and could increase the savings by reducing the amount the government pays for care.
Also this week, Rovner interviews Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum and former director of the Congressional Budget Office, to discuss how the CBO works and why it’s so controversial.
Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:
Julie Rovner: Stat’s “Lawmakers Lobby Doctors To Keep Quiet — or Speak Up — on Medicaid Cuts in Trump’s Tax Bill,” by Daniel Payne.
Anna Edney: KFF Health News’ “Two Patients Faced Chemo. The One Who Survived Demanded a Test To See if It Was Safe,” by Arthur Allen.
Sarah Karlin-Smith: Wired’s “The Bleach Community Is Ready for RFK Jr. To Make Their Dreams Come True,” by David Gilbert.
Joanne Kenen: ProPublica’s “DOGE Developed Error-Prone AI Tool To ‘Munch’ Veterans Affairs Contracts,” by Brandon Roberts, Vernal Coleman, and Eric Umansky.
Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:
- The Hill’s “Cassidy in a Bind as RFK Jr. Blows Up Vaccine Policy,” by Nathaniel Weixel.
- JAMA Pediatrics’ “Firearm Laws and Pediatric Mortality in the US,” by Jeremy Samuel Faust, Ji Chen, and Shriya Bhat.
Click to open the transcript
Transcript: RFK Jr. Upends Vaccine Policy, After Promising He Wouldn’t
[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, June 12, 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 Anna Edney of Bloomberg News.
Anna Edney: Hi, everybody.
Rovner: Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine.
Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.
Rovner: And Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.
Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hello, everybody.
Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with Douglas Holtz-Eakin, head of the American Action Forum and former head of the Congressional Budget Office. Doug will talk about what it is that CBO actually does and why it’s the subject of so many slings and arrows. But first, this week’s news.
The biggest health news this week is out of the Department of Health and Human Services, where Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monday summarily fired all 17 members of the CDC’s [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s] vaccine advisory committee, something he expressly promised Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy he wouldn’t do, in exchange for Cassidy’s vote to confirm him last winter. Sarah, remind us what this committee does and why it matters who’s on it?
Karlin-Smith: So, they’re a committee that advises CDC on who should use various vaccines approved in the U.S., and their recommendations translate, assuming they’re accepted by the CDC, to whether vaccines are covered by most insurance plans and also reimbursed. There’s various laws that we have that set out, that require coverage of vaccines recommended by the ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] and so forth. So without ACIP recommendations, you may — vaccines could be available in the U.S. but extremely unaffordable for many people.
Rovner: Right, because they’ll be uncovered.
Karlin-Smith: Correct. Your insurance company may choose not to reimburse them.
Rovner: And just to be clear, this is separate from the FDA’s [Food and Drug Administration’s] actual approval of the vaccines and the acknowledgment it’s safe and effective. Right, Anna?
Edney: Yeah, there are two different roles here. So the FDA looks at all the safety and effectiveness data and decides whether it’s safe to come to market. And with ACIP, they are deciding whether these are things that children or adults or pregnant women, different categories of people, should be getting on a regular basis.
Rovner: So Wednesday afternoon, Secretary Kennedy named eight replacements to the committee, including several with known anti-vaccine views. I suppose that’s what we all expected, kind of?
Kenen: He also shrunk it, so there are fewer voices. The old panel, I believe, had 17. And the law says it has to have at least eight, and he appointed eight. As far as we know, that’s all he’s appointing. But who knows? A couple of more could straggle in. But as of now, it means there’s less viewpoints, less voices, which may or might not turn out to be a good thing. But it is a different committee in every respect.
Edney: And I think it is a bit of what we expected in the sense that these are people who either are outright vaccine critics or, in a case or two, have actually said vaccines do horrible things to people. One of them had said before that the covid vaccine caused an AIDS-like virus in people. And there is a nurse that is part of the committee now that said her son was harmed by vaccines. And not saying that is or isn’t true — her concerns could be valid — but that she very much has worked to question vaccines.
So I think it is the committee that we maybe would’ve expected from a sense of, I think he’s trying to bring in people who are a little bit mainstream, in the sense if you looked at where they worked or things like that, you might not say, like: Oh, Georgetown University. I get it. But they are people who have taken kind of the more of a fringe approach within maybe kind of a mainstream world.
Karlin-Smith: I was going to say there’s also many people on the list that it’s just not even clear to me why you would look at their expertise and think, Oh, this is a committee they should serve on. One of the people is an MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology], essentially, like, business school professor who tangentially I think has worked on health policy to some extent. But, right, this is not somebody who has extreme expertise in vaccinology, immunology, and so forth. You have a psychiatrist whose expertise seems to be on nutrition and brain health.
And one thing I think people don’t always appreciate about this committee at CDC is, you see them in these public meetings that happen a few times a year, but they do a lot of work behind the scenes to actually go through data and make these recommendations. And so having less people and having people that don’t actually have the expertise to do this work seems like it could cause a big problem just from that point of view.
Edney: And that can be the issue that comes up when Kennedy has said, I don’t want anyone with any conflicts of interest. Well, we’ve talked about this. Certainly you don’t want a legit conflict of interest, but a lot of people who are going to have the expertise you need may have a perceived conflict that he doesn’t want on there. So you end up maybe with somebody who works in operations instead of on vaccines.
Rovner: You mean maybe we’ll have people who actually have researched vaccines.
Edney: Right. Exactly. Yeah.
Kenen: The MIT guy is an expert in supply chains. None of us know who the best supply chain business school professor is in the world. Maybe it’s him, but it’s a very odd placement.
Rovner: Well, so far Sen. Cassidy hasn’t said very much other than to kind of communicate that he’s not happy right now. Has anybody heard anything further? The secretary has been sort of walking up to the line of things he told the senator he wouldn’t do, but this clearly is over the line of things he told the senator he wouldn’t do. And now it’s done.
Kenen: It’s like over the line and he set fire to it. And Cassidy has been pretty quiet. And in fact, when Kennedy testified before Cassidy — Cassidy is the chairman of the health committee — a couple of weeks ago, he gave him a really warm greeting and thanked him for coming and didn’t say: You’re a month late. I wanted you here last month. The questions were very soft. And things have only gotten more heated since then, with the dissolution of the ACIP committee and this reconstitution of it. And he’s been very quiet for somebody who publicly justified, who publicly wrestled with this, the confirmation, was the deciding vote, and then has been really soft since then — in public.
Rovner: I sent around a story this morning to the panelists, from The Hill, which I will link to in the show notes, that quotes a political science professor in Louisiana pointing out that perhaps it would be better for Cassidy politically not to say anything, that perhaps public opinion among Republicans who will vote in a primary is more on the side of Secretary Kennedy than Sen. Cassidy, which raises some interesting questions.
Edney: Yeah. And I think that, at least for me, I’m at the point of wondering if Cassidy didn’t know that all along, that there’s a point he was willing to go up to but a line that he is never going to have been willing to cross, and that is actually coming out against Kennedy and, therefore, [President Donald] Trump. He doesn’t want to lose his reelection. I am starting to wonder if he just hoped it wouldn’t come to this and so was able to say those things that got him to vote for Kennedy and then hope that it wouldn’t happen.
And I think that was a lot of people. They weren’t on the line like Cassidy was, but I think a lot of people thought, Oh, nothing’s ever going to happen on this. And I think another thing I’m learning as I cover this administration and the Kennedy HHS is when they say, Don’t worry about it, look away, we’re not doing anything that big of a deal, that’s when you have to worry about it. And when they make a big deal about some policy they’re bringing up, it actually means they’re not really doing a lot on it. So I think we’re seeing that with vaccines for sure.
Rovner: Yes, classic watch what they do not what they say.
Kenen: But if you’re Cassidy and you already voted to impeach President Trump, which means you already have a target from the right — he’s a conservative, but it’s from the more conservative, though, the more MAGA [Make America Great Again] — if you do something mavericky, sometimes the best political line is to continue doing it. But they’ve also changed the voting rules, my understanding is, in Louisiana so that independents are — they used to be able to cross party lines in the primaries, and I believe you can’t do that anymore. So that also changed, and that’s recent, so that might have been what he thought might save him.
Rovner: Well, it’s not just ACIP where Secretary Kennedy is insinuating himself directly into vaccine policy. HHS has also canceled a huge contract with vaccine maker Moderna, which was working on an mRNA-based bird flu vaccine, which we might well need in the near future, and they’ve also canceled trials of potential HIV vaccines. What do we know about what this HHS is doing in terms of vaccine policy?
Karlin-Smith: The bird flu contract I think is very concerning because it seems to go along the lines of many people in this administration and Kennedy’s orbit who sometimes might seem a little bit OK with vaccines, more OK than Kennedy’s record, is they are very anti the newer mRNA technology, which we know proved very effective in saving tens of millions of lives. I was looking at some data just even the first year they rolled out after covid. So we know they work. Obviously, like all medical interventions, there are some side effects. But again, the benefits outweigh the risks. And this is the only, really, technology that we have that could really get us vaccines really quickly in a pandemic and bird flu.
Really, the fear there is that if it were to jump to humans and really spread from human-to-human transmission — we have had some cases recently — it could be much more devastating than a pandemic like covid. And so not having the government have these relationships with companies who could produce products at a particular speed would be probably incredibly devastating, given the other technologies we have to invest in.
Edney: I think Kennedy has also showed us that he, and spoken about this, is that he is much more interested in a cure for anything. He has talked about measles and Why can’t we just treat it better? And we’re seeing that with the HIV vaccine that won’t be going forward in the same way, is that the administration has basically said: We have the tools to deal with it if somebody gets it. We’re just not going to worry about vaccinating as much. And so I think that this is a little bit in that vein as well.
Rovner: So the heck with prevention, basically.
Edney: Exactly.
Rovner: Well, in related news, some 300 employees of the National Institutes of Health, including several institute directors, this week sent an open letter of dissent to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya that they are calling the “Bethesda Declaration.” That’s a reference to the “Great Barrington Declaration” that the NIH director helped spearhead back in 2020 that protested covid lockdowns and NIH’s handling of the science.
The Bethesda Declaration protests policies that the signatories say, quote, “undermine the NIH mission, waste our public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.” Here’s how one of the signers, Jenna Norton of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, put it in a YouTube video.
Jenna Norton: And the NIH that I’m working in now is unrecognizable to me. Every day I go into the office and I wonder what ethical boundary I’m going to be asked to violate, what probably illegal action am I going to be asked to take. And it’s just soul-crushing. And that’s one of the reasons that I’m signing this letter. One of my co-signers said this, but I’m going to quote them because I thought it was so powerful: “You get another job, but you cannot get another soul.”
Rovner: I’ve been covering NIH for a lot of years. I can’t remember pushback like this against an administration by its own scientists, even during the height of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s. How serious is this? And is it likely to have any impact on policy going forward?
Edney: I think if you’re seeing a good amount of these signers who sign their actual names and if you’re seeing that in the government, something is very serious and there are huge concerns, I think, because, as a journalist, I try to reach people who work in the government all the time. And if they’re not in the press office, if they speak to me, which is rare, even they do not want me to use their name. They do not want to be identified in any way, because there are repercussions for that.
And especially with this administration, I’m sure that there is some fear for people’s jobs and in some instances maybe even beyond. But I think that whether there will be any policy changes, that is a little less clear, how this administration might take that to heart or listen to what they’re saying.
Rovner: Bhattacharya was in front of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee this week and was asked about it, but only sort of tangentially. I was a little bit surprised that — obviously, Republicans, we just talked about Sen. Cassidy, they are afraid to go up against the Trump administration’s choices for some of these jobs — but I was surprised that even some of the Democrats seemed a little bit hands-off.
Edney: Yeah, no one ever asks the questions I want asked at hearings, I have to say. I’m always screaming. Yeah, exactly. I’m always like: No. What are you doing?
Rovner: That’s exactly how I was, like: No, ask him this.
Edney: Right.
Rovner: Don’t ask him that.
Edney: Exactly.
Rovner: Well, moving on to the Big Budget Bill, which is my new name for it. Everybody else seems to have a different one. It’s still not clear when the Senate will actually take up its parts, particularly those related to health, but it is clear that it’s not just Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act on the table but now Medicare, too. Ironically, it feels like lawmakers could more easily squeeze savings out of Medicare without hurting beneficiaries than either Medicaid or the ACA, or is that just me being too simplistic about this whole thing?
Kenen: The Medicare bill is targeted at upcoding, which means insurers or providers sort of describing a symptom or an illness in the most severe terms possible and they get paid more. And everybody in government is actually against that. Everybody ends up paying more. I don’t know what else the small —this has just bubbled up — but I don’t know if there’s other small print.
This alone, if it wasn’t tied to all the politics of everything else in this bill, this is the kind of thing, if you really do a bill that attacks inflated medical bills, you could probably get bipartisan support for. But because — and, again, I don’t know what else is in, and I know that’s the top line. There may be something that I’m not aware of that is more of a poison pill. But that issue you could get bipartisan consensus on.
But it’s folded into this horrendously contentious thing. And it’s easy to say, Oh, they’re trying to cut Medicare, which in this case maybe they’re trying to cut it in a way that is smart, but it just makes it more complicated. If they do go for it, if they do decide that this goes in there, it could create a little more wiggle room to not cut some other things quite as deeply.
But again, they’re calling everything waste, fraud, and abuse. None of us would say there is no waste, fraud, and abuse in government or in health care. We all know there is waste, fraud, and abuse, but that doesn’t mean that what they’re cutting here is waste, fraud, and abuse in other aspects of that bill.
Rovner: Although, as you say, I think there’s bipartisan consensus, including from Mehmet Oz, who runs Medicare, that upcoding is waste and fraud.
Kenen: Right. But other things in the bill are being called waste, fraud, and abuse that are not, right? That there’s things in Medicaid that are not waste, fraud, and abuse. They’re just changing the rules. But I agree with you, Julie. I think that in a bill that is not so fraught, it would’ve been easier to get consensus on this particular item, assuming it’s a clean upcoding bill, if you did it in a different way.
Rovner: And also, there’s already a bipartisan bill on pharmacy benefit managers kicking around. There are a lot of things that Congress could do on a bipartisan basis to reduce the cost of Medicare and make the program better and shore it up, and that doesn’t seem to be what’s happening, for the most part.
Well, we continue to learn things about the House-passed bill that we didn’t know before, and one thing we learned this week that I think bears discussing comes from a new poll from our KFF polling unit that found that nearly half those who purchased Affordable Care Act coverage from the marketplaces are Republicans, including a significant percentage who identify themselves as MAGA Republicans.
So it’s not just Republicans in the Medicaid expansion population who’d be impacted. Millions of Trump supporters could end up losing or being priced out of their ACA insurance, too, particularly in non-Medicaid-expansion states like Florida and Texas. A separate poll from Quinnipiac this week finds that only 27% of respondents think Congress should pass the big budget reconciliation bill. Could either of these things change some Republican perceptions of things in this bill, or is it just too far down the train tracks at this point?
Karlin-Smith: We saw a few weeks ago [Sen.] Joni Ernst seemed to be really highly critical of her own supporters who were pushing back on her support for the bill. Even when Republicans failed to get rid of the ACA and [Sen.] John McCain gave it the thumbs-down, he was the one. It wasn’t like everyone else was coming to help him with that.
And again, I think there was the same dynamic where a lot of people who, if you had asked them did they support Obamacare while it was being written in law, in early days before they saw any benefit of it, would have said no and politically align themselves with the Republican Party, and their views have come to realize, once you get a benefit, that it may actually be more desirable, perhaps, than you initially thought.
I think it could become a problem for them, but I don’t think it’s going to be a mass group of Republicans are going to change their minds over this.
Rovner: Or are they going to figure out that that’s why they’re losing their coverage?
Kenen: Right. Many things in this bill, if it goes into effect, are actually after the 2026 elections. The ACA stuff is earlier. And someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure it expires in time for the next enrollment season.
Rovner: Yeah, and we’ve talked about this before. The expanded credits, which are not sort of quote-unquote—
Kenen: No, they’re separate.
Rovner: —“in this bill,” but it’s the expiration of those that’s going to cause—
Kenen: In September. And so those—
Rovner: Right.
Kenen: —people would—
Rovner: In December. No, at the end of the year they expire.
Kenen: Right. So that in 2026, people getting the expanded benefit. And there’s also somewhat of a misunderstanding that that legislation opened Obamacare subsidies to people further up the eligibility roof, so more people who had more money but still couldn’t afford insurance do get subsidies. That goes away, but it cascades down. It affects lower-income people. It affects other people. It’s not just that income bracket.
There are sort of ripple effects through the entire subsidized population. So people will lose their coverage. There’s really no dispute about that. The reason it was sunsetted is because it costs money. Congress does that a lot. If we do it for five years, we can get it on the score that we need out of the CBO. But if we do it for 10 years, we can’t. So that is not an unusual practice in Congress for Republicans and Democrats, but that happens before the election.
It’s just whether people connect the dots and whether there are enough of them to make a difference in an election, right? Millions of people across the country. But does it change how people vote in a specific race in a state that’s already red? If it’s a very red state, it may not make people get mad, but it may not affect who gets elected to House or the Senate in 2026.
Rovner: We will see. So Sarah, I was glad you mentioned Sen. Ernst, because last week we talked about her comment that we’re all going to die, in response to complaints at a town hall meeting about the Medicaid cuts. Well, Medicare and Medicaid chief Mehmet Oz says to Sen. Ernst, Hold my beer. Speaking on Fox Business, Oz said people should only get Medicaid if they, quote, “prove that they matter.”
Now, this was in the context of saying that if you want Medicaid, you should work or go to school. Of course, most people on Medicaid do work or care-give for someone who can’t work or do go to school — they just have jobs that don’t come with private health insurance. I can’t help but think this is kind of a big hole in the Republican talking points that we keep seeing. These members keep suggesting that all working people or people going to school get health insurance, and that’s just not the case.
Kenen: But it sounds good.
Karlin-Smith: I was going to say, there are small employers that don’t have to provide coverage under the ACA. There are people that have sort of churned because they work part time or can’t quite get enough hours to qualify, and these are often lower-income people. And I think the other thing I’ve seen people, especially in the disability committee and so forth, raises — there’s an underlying rhetoric here that to get health care, you have to be deserving and to be working.
That, I think, is starting to raise concerns, because even though they kind of say they’re not attacking that population that gets Medicaid, I think there is some concern about the language that they’re using is placing a value on people’s lives that just sort of undermines those that legitimately cannot work, for no fault of their own.
Kenen: It’s how the Republicans have begun talking about Medicaid again. Public opinion, and KFF has had some really interesting polls on this over the last few years, really interesting changes in public attitudes toward Medicaid, much more popular. And it’s thought of even by many Republicans as a health care program, not a welfare program. What you have seen — and that’s a change.
What you’ve seen in the last couple of months is Republican leaders, notably Speaker [Mike] Johnson, really talking about this as welfare. And it’s very reminiscent of the Reagan years, the concept of the deserving poor that goes back decades. But we haven’t heard it as much that these are the people who deserve our help and these are the lazy bums or the cheats.
Speaker Johnson didn’t call them lazy bums and cheats, but there’s this concept of some people deserve our help and the rest of them, tough luck. They don’t deserve it. And so that’s a change in the rhetoric. And talking about waste and talking about fraud and talking about abuse is creating the impression that it’s rampant, that there’s this huge abuse, and that’s not the case. People are vetted for Medicaid and they do qualify for Medicaid.
States have their own money and their own enrollment systems. They have every incentive to not cover people who don’t deserve to be covered. Again, none of us are saying there’s zero waste. We would never say that. None of us are saying there’s zero abuse. But it’s not like that’s the defining characteristic of Medicaid is that it’s all fraud and abuse, and that you can cut hundreds of millions of dollars out of it without anybody feeling any pain.
Rovner: And there were a lot of Republican states that expanded Medicaid, even when they didn’t have to, that are going to feel this. That’s a whole other issue that I think we will talk about probably in the weeks to come. I want to move to DOGE [the Department of Government Efficiency]. Elon Musk is back in California, having had a very ugly breakup with President Trump and possibly a partial reconciliation. But the impact of DOGE continues across the federal government, as well as at HHS.
The latest news is apparently hundreds of CDC employees who were told that they were being laid off who are now being told: Never mind. Come back to work. Of course, this news comes weeks after they were told they were being fired, and it’s unclear how many of them have upended their work and family lives in the interim.
But at the same time, much of the money that’s supposed to be flowing, appropriations for the current fiscal year that were passed by Congress and signed by President Trump — apparently still being held up. What are you guys hearing about how things at HHS are or aren’t going in the wake of the DOGE cutbacks? Go ahead, Sarah.
Karlin-Smith: It still seems like people at the federal government that I talked to are incredibly unhappy. At other agencies, as well, there have been groups of people called back to work, including at FDA. But still, I think the general sense is there’s a lot of chaos. People aren’t comfortable that their job will be there long-term. Many people even who were called back are saying they’re still looking for work other places.
There’s just so many changes in both, I think, in their day-to-day lives and how they do their job, but then also philosophically in terms of policy and what they are allowed to do, that I think a lot of people are becoming kind of demoralized and trying to figure out: Can they do what they signed up to do in their job, or is it better just to move on? And I think there’s going to be long-term consequences for a lot of these government agencies.
Rovner: You mean being fired and unfired and refired doesn’t make for a happy workplace?
Karlin-Smith: I was going to say a lot of them were called back to offices that they didn’t always have to come to. They’ve lost people who have been working and never lost their jobs, have lost close colleagues, support staff they rely on to do their jobs. So it’s really complicated even if you’re in the best-case scenario, I think, at a lot of these agencies.
Kenen: And a loss of institutional memory, too, because nobody knows everything in your office. And in an office that functions, it’s collaborative. I know this, you know that. We work together, and we come out with a better product. So that’s been eviscerated. And then — we’re all in a part of an industry that’s seen a lot of downsizing and chaos, in journalism, and the outcome is worse. When things get beaten up and battered and kicked out, things are harmed. And it’s true of any industry, since we haven’t been AI-replaced yet.
Rovner: Yet. So it’s been a while since we had a, quote, “This Week in Private Equity in Health Care,” but this week the governor of Oregon signed into law a pretty serious ban on private equity ownership of physician practices. Apparently, this was prompted by the purchase by Optum — that’s the arm of UnitedHealth that is now the largest owner of physician practices in the U.S. — of a multi-specialty group in Eugene, Oregon, that caused significant dislocation for patients and was charged by the state with impermissibly raising prices. Hospitals are not included in Oregon’s ban, but I wonder if this is the start of a trend. Or is this a one-off in a pretty blue state, which Oregon is?
Edney: I think that it could be. I don’t know, certainly, but I think to watch how it plays out might be quite interesting. The problem with private equity ownership of these doctors’ offices is then the doctors don’t feel that they can actually give good care. They’ve got to move people through. It’s all about how much money can they make or save so that private equity can get its reward. And so I think that people certainly are frustrated by it, as in people who get the care, also people who are doing legislating and things like that. So I wouldn’t be surprised to see some other attempts at this pop up now that we’ve seen one.
Kenen: But Oregon is uniquely placed to get something like this through. They are a very blue state. They’ve got a history of some health reform stuff that’s progressive. I don’t think you’ll see this domino-ing through every state legislature in the short term.
Rovner: But I will also say that even in Oregon, it took a while to get this through. There was a lot of pushback because there is concern that without private equity, maybe some of these practices are going to go belly up. This is the continuing fight about the future of the health care workforce and who’s going to underwrite it.
Well, finally this week, I want to give a shoutout to the biggest cause of childhood death and injury that is not being currently addressed by HHS, which is gun violence. According to a new study in JAMA Pediatrics, firearms deaths among children and teens grew significantly in states that loosened gun laws following a major Supreme Court decision in 2010. And it wasn’t just accidents. The increase in deaths included homicides and suicides, too. Yet gun violence seems to have kind of disappeared from the national agenda for both parties.
Edney: Yeah, you don’t hear as much about it. I don’t know why. I don’t know if it’s because we’re inundated every day with a million things. And currently at the moment, that just hasn’t come up again, as far as a tragedy. That often tends to bring it back to people’s front of mind. And I think that there is, on the Republican side at least, we’re seeing tax cuts for gun silencers and things like that. So I think they’re emboldened on the side of NRA [the National Rifle Association]. I don’t know if Democrats are seeing that and thinking it’s a losing battle. What else can I focus my attention on?
Kenen: Well, it’s in the news when there’s a mass killing. Society has just sort of become inured or shut its eyes to the day to day to day to day to day. The accidents, the murders. Don’t forget, a lot of our suicide problem is guns, including older white men in rural states who are very pro-gun. Those who kill themselves, it is how they kill themselves. It’s just something we have let happen.
Rovner: Plus, we’re now back to arguing about whether or not vaccines are worthwhile. So, a lot of the oxygen is being taken up with other issues at the moment.
Kenen: There’s a very overcrowded bandwidth these days. Yes.
Rovner: There is. I think that’s fair. All right, well, that is this week’s news, or as much as we could squeeze in. Now we will play my interview with Doug Holtz-Eakin, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.
I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, a center-right think tank, and former head of the Congressional Budget Office during the George W. Bush administration, when Republicans also controlled both Houses of Congress. Doug, thank you so much for being here.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin: My pleasure. Thank you.
Rovner: I mostly asked you here to talk about CBO and what it does and why it’s so controversial. But first, tell us about the American Action Forum and what it is you do now.
Holtz-Eakin: So the American Action Forum is, on paper, a center-right think tank, a 501(c)(3) entity that does public education on policy issues, but it’s modeled on my experiences at working at the White House twice, running the Congressional Budget Office, and I was also director of domestic and economic policy on the John McCain campaign. And in those jobs, you worked on policy issues. You did policy education, issues, options, advice, but you worked on whatever was happening that day.
You didn’t have the luxury of saying: Yeah, that’s not what I do. Get back to me when something interests you. And you had to convey your results in English to nonspecialists. So there was a sort of a premium on the communications function, and you also had to understand the politics. On a campaign you had to make good policy good politics, and at the White House you worried about the president’s program.
No matter who was in Congress, that was all they thought about. And in Congress, the CBO is nonpartisan by law, and so obviously you have to care about that. And I just decided I like that work, and that’s what AAF does. We do domestic and economic policy on the issues that are going on in Congress or the agencies, with an emphasis on providing material that is readable to nonspecialists so they can understand what’s going on.
Rovner: You’re a professional policy nerd, in other words.
Holtz-Eakin: Pretty much, yeah.
Rovner: As am I. So I don’t mean that in any way to be derogatory. I plead guilty myself.
Holtz-Eakin: These bills, who knew?
Rovner: Exactly. Well, let’s talk about the CBO, which, people may or may not know, was created along with the rest of the congressional budget process overhaul in 1974. What is CBO’s actual job? What is it that CBO is tasked to do?
Holtz-Eakin: It has two jobs. Job number one, the one we’re hearing so much about now, is to estimate the budgetary impact of pieces of legislation being considered on the floor of the House or the Senate. So they call this scoring, and it is: How much will the bill change the flow of revenues into the Treasury and the flow of spending out of the Treasury year by year over what is currently 10 years?
And you compare that to what would happen if you didn’t pass law, which is to say, leave the laws of land on autopilot and check out what happened to the budget then. So that’s what it’s doing now, and you get a lot of disagreement on the nature of that analysis. It also spends a lot of time doing studies for members of Congress on policies that Congress may have to be looking at in the future.
And so anticipating the needs of Congress, studying things like Social Security reforms, which are coming, or different ways to do Medicaid reform if we decide to go down that route, and things that will prepare the Congress for future debates.
Rovner: Obviously these scores are best guesses of people who spend a lot of time studying economic models. How accurate are CBO’s estimates?
Holtz-Eakin: They’re wrong all the time, but that’s because predicting the future is really hard, and because when CBO does its estimates, it’s not permitted by law to anticipate future actions of Congress, and Congress is always doing something. That often changes the outcome down the road. Sometimes there are just unexpected events in the world. The pandemic was not something that was in the CBO baseline in 2019. And so, obviously, the numbers changed dramatically because of that.
And also, because CBO is not really just trying to forecast. If that was all it was being asked to do, it might get closer sometimes, but what it’s really being asked to do is to be able to compare pieces of legislation. What’s the House bill look like compared to the Senate bill? And to do that, you have to keep the point of comparison, the so-called baseline, the same for as long as you’re doing this legislation.
In some cases, that’s quite a long time. It was over two years for the Affordable Care Act. And by the time you’re at the end, the forecast is way out of date. But for consistency, you have to hold on to it. And then people say, Oh, you got the forecast wrong. But it’s the nature of what they’re being asked to do, which is to provide consistent scores that rank things appropriately, that can interfere with the just pure forecasting aspect.
Rovner: And basically they’re the referee. It’s hard to imagine being able to do this process without having someone who acts as a referee, right?
Holtz-Eakin: Well, yes. And in fact, sometimes you see them rush through and ignore CBO. And generally, that’s a sign that it’s not going well, because they really should take the time to understand the consequences of what they’re up to.
Rovner: And how does that work? CBO, people get frustrated because this stuff doesn’t happen, like, overnight. They write a bill and there should be a CBO score the next day. But it’s not just fed into an AI algorithm, right?
Holtz-Eakin: No. That’s a great misconception about CBO. People think there’s a model. You just put it in the model. You drop the legislation and out comes the numbers. And there are some things for which we have a very good feel because they’ve been done a lot. So change the matching rate in Medicaid and see what happens to spending — been done a lot. We understand that pretty well.
Pass a Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, where the federal government provides a backstop to the private property and casualty insurance companies in the event there’s a terrorist attack at an unknown time in the future using an unknown weapon in an unknown location — there’s no model for that. You just have to read about extreme events, look at their financial consequences, imagine how much money the insurance companies would have, when they would round up money, and how much the federal government would be on the hook for. It’s not modeling. You’re asking CBO’s professionals to make informed budgetary judgments, and we pay them for their judgment. And I think that’s poorly understood.
Rovner: So I’ve been at this since the late 1980s. I’ve seen a lot of CBO directors, Republican and Democrats, and my impression is that, to a person, they have tried very hard to play things as much down the middle as possible. Do you guys have strategy sessions to come up with ways to be as nonpartisan as you can?
Holtz-Eakin: The truth is you just listen to the staff. I say this and I’m not sure people will fully appreciate it: Nonpartisanship is in the DNA of CBO, and I attribute this to the very first director, Alice Rivlin, and some of her immediate successors. They were interested in establishing the budget office, which had been invented in 1974, really got up and running a couple of years later, and they wanted to establish this credibility.
And regardless of their own political leanings, they worked hard to put in place procedures and training of the staff that emphasized: There’s a research literature out there, go look at it. What’s the consensus in that research literature? Regardless of what you might think, what is it telling you about the impact of this program or this tax or whatever it might be? Bring that back. That’s what we’re going to do.
Now we’ve done an estimate. Let’s go out at the end of the year and look at all our baseline estimates and look at what actually happened, compare the before and after. Oh my God. We’re really off. Why? What can we learn from that? And it’s a constant repetition of that. It’s been going on for a long time now and with just outstanding results, I think. CBO is a very professional place that has a very specialized job and does it real well.
Rovner: So obviously, lawmakers have always complained about the CBO, because you always complain about the referee, particularly if they say something you don’t like or you disagree with. I feel like the criticism has gotten more heated in the last couple of years and that there’s been more of an effort to really undermine what it is that CBO does.
Holtz-Eakin: I don’t know if I agree with that. That comes up a lot. It is certainly more pointed. I lay a lot of this at the feet of the president, who, when he first ran, introduced a very personal style campaigning. Everything is personal. He doesn’t have abstract policy arguments. He makes it about him versus someone else and usually gives that person a nickname, like “Rocket Boy” for the leader of North Korea, and sort of diminishes the virtues and skills of his opponent, in this case.
So he says, like, that CBO is horrible. It’s a terrible place. That is more personal. That isn’t the nature of the attacks I receive, for example. But other than that, it’s the same, right? When CBO delivers good news, Congress says, God, we did a good job. When CBO delivers bad news, they say, God, CBO is terrible. And that’s been true for a long time.
Rovner: And I imagine it will in the future. Doug Holtz-Eakin, thank you so much for being here and explaining all this.
Holtz-Eakin: Thank you.
Rovner: OK, we’re back. And now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Sarah, why don’t you go first this week?
Karlin-Smith: I took a look at a story in Wired by David Gilbert, “The Bleach Community Is Ready for RFK Jr. To Make Their Dreams Come True.” It’s a story about Kennedy’s past references to the use of chlorine dioxide and groups of people who were pushing for this use as kind of a cure-all for almost any condition you can think of. And one thing the author of this piece picked up on is that some of the FDA warnings not to do this, because it’s incredibly dangerous and can kill you — it is not going to cure any of the ailments described — have been taken off of the agency’s website recently, which seems a bit concerning.
Now, FDA seems to suggest they did it because it’s just a few years old and they tend to archive posts after that. But if you read what happens to people who try and use bleach — or really it’s like even more concentrated product, essentially — it would be hard for me to understand why you would want to try this. But it is incredibly concerning to see these just really dangerous, unscientifically supported cures come back and get sort of more of a platform.
Rovner: Yes. I guess we can’t talk about gun violence because we’re talking about drinking bleach. Anna.
Edney: So mine is from KFF Health News, by Arthur Allen. It’s “Two Patients Faced Chemo. The One Who Survived Demanded a Test To See if It Was Safe.” And I found this starts off with a woman who needed chemo, and she got it and she started getting sores in her mouth and swelling around her eyes. And eventually she died a really painful, awful death, not from the cancer but from not being able to swallow or talk. And it was from the chemo. It was a reaction to the chemo, which I didn’t realize until I read this can, is a rare side effect that can happen.
And there is a test for it. You can tell who might respond this way to chemo. And it doesn’t necessarily mean you wouldn’t get any chemo. You would instead maybe get lower doses, maybe different days of the week, things like that to try to help you not end up like this woman. And he also was able to talk to someone who knew about this and insisted on the test. And those were some of the calibrations that they made for her treatment. So I think it’s a great piece of public service journalism. It helps a lot of people be aware.
Rovner: Super interesting. I had no idea until I read it, either. Joanne.
Kenen: ProPublica, Brandon Roberts, Vernal Coleman, and Eric Umansky did a story called “DOGE Developed Error-Prone AI Tool to ‘Munch’ Veterans Affairs Contract.” And they had a related story that Julie can post that actually shows the code and the AI prompts, and you do not have to be very technically sophisticated to understand that there were some problems with those prompts. Basically, they had somebody who had no government experience and no health care experience writing really bad code and bad prompts.
And we don’t know how many of the contracts were actually canceled, as opposed to flagged for canceling. There were things that they said were worth $34 million that weren’t needed. They were actually $35,000 and essential things that really pertain to patient care, including programs to improve nursing care were targeted. They were “munched,” which is not a word I had come across. So yes, it was everything you suspected and ProPublica documented it.
Rovner: Yeah, it’s a very vivid story. Well, my extra credit this week is from Stat, and it’s called “Lawmakers Lobby Doctors To Keep Quiet — or Speak Up — on Medicaid Cuts in Trump’s Tax Bill,” by Daniel Payne. And it’s about something called reverse lobbying, lawmakers lobbying the lobbyists — in this case, in hopes of getting them to speak out or not about the budget reconciliation bill and its possible impact. Both sides know the public trusts health groups more than they trust lawmakers at this point.
And so Democrats are hoping doctor and hospital groups will speak out in opposition to the cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, while Republicans hope they will at least keep quiet. And Republicans, because it’s their bill, have added some sweeteners — a long-desired pay increase for doctors in Medicare. So we will have to wait to see how this all shakes out.
All right, that is this week’s show. Thanks as always to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left a review. That helps other people find us, too. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on X, @jrover, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks hanging these days? Anna.
Edney: X or Bluesky, @annaedney.
Rovner: Joanne
Kenen: Bluesky or LinkedIn, @joannekenen.
Rovner: Sarah.
Karlin-Smith: All of the above, @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith.
Rovner: We’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.
Credits
Francis Ying
Audio producer
Emmarie Huetteman
Editor
To hear all our podcasts, click here.
And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, 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).
1 month 2 weeks ago
Health Care Costs, Health Industry, Insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, Multimedia, Public Health, States, HHS, KFF Health News' 'What The Health?', Legislation, NIH, Obamacare Plans, Podcasts, Trump Administration, U.S. Congress, vaccines
In a Dusty Corner of California, Trump’s Threatened Cuts to Asthma Care Raise Fears
Esther Bejarano’s son was 11 months old when asthma landed him in the hospital. She didn’t know what had triggered his symptoms — neither she nor her husband had asthma — but she suspected it was the pesticides sprayed on the agricultural fields near her family’s home.
Pesticides are a known contributor to asthma and are commonly used where Bejarano lives in California’s Imperial Valley, a landlocked region that straddles two counties on the U.S.-Mexico border and is one of the main producers of the nation’s winter crops. It also has some of the worst air pollution in the nation and one of the highest rates of childhood asthma emergency room visits in the state, according to data collected by the California Department of Public Health.
Bejarano has since learned to manage her now-19-year-old son’s asthma and works at Comite Civico del Valle, a local rights organization focused on environmental justice in the Imperial Valley. The organization trains health care workers to educate patients on proper asthma management, enabling them to avoid hospitalization and eliminate triggers at home. The course is so popular that there’s a waiting list, Bejarano said.
But the group’s Asthma Management Academy program and similar initiatives nationwide face extinction with the Trump administration’s mass layoffs, grant cancellations, and proposed budget cuts at the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency. Asthma experts fear the cumulative impact of the reductions could result in more ER visits and deaths, particularly for children and people in low-income communities — populations disproportionately vulnerable to the disease.
“Asthma is a preventive condition,” Bejarano said. “No one should die of asthma.”
Asthma can block airways, making it hard to breathe, and in severe cases can cause death if not treated quickly. Nearly 28 million people in the U.S. have asthma, and about 10 people still die every day from the disease, according to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.
In May, the White House released a budget proposal that would permanently shutter the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Asthma Control Program, which was already gutted by federal health department layoffs in April. It’s unclear whether Congress will approve the closure.
Last year, the program allotted $33.5 million to state-administered initiatives in 27 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C., to help communities with asthma education. The funding is distributed in four-year grant cycles, during which the programs receive up to $725,000 each annually.
Comite Civico del Valle’s academy in Southern California, a clinician workshop in Houston, and asthma medical management training in Allentown, Pennsylvania — ranked the most challenging U.S. city to live in with asthma — are among the programs largely surviving on these grants. The first year of the current grant cycle ends Aug. 31, and it’s unknown whether funding will continue beyond then.
Data suggests that the CDC’s National Asthma Control Program has had a significant impact. The agency’s own research has shown that the program saves $71 in health care costs for every $1 invested. And the asthma death rate decreased 44% between the 1999 launch of the program and 2021, according to the American Lung Association.
“Losing support from the CDC will have devastating impacts on asthma programs in states and communities across the country, programs that we know are improving the lives of millions of people with asthma,” said Anne Kelsey Lamb, director of the Public Health Institute’s Regional Asthma Management and Prevention program. “And the thing is that we know a lot about what works to help people keep their asthma well controlled, and that’s why it’s so devastating.”
The Trump administration cited cost savings and efficiency in its April announcement of the cuts to HHS. Requests for comment from the White House and CDC about cuts to federal asthma and related programs were not answered.
The Information Wars
Fresno, in the heart of California’s Central Valley, is one of the country’s top 20 “asthma capitals,” with high rates of asthma and related emergencies and deaths. It’s home to programs that receive funding through the National Asthma Control Program. Health care professionals there also rely on another aspect of the program that is under threat if it’s shuttered: countrywide data.
The federal asthma program collects information on asthma rates and offers a tool to study prevalence and rates of death from the disease, see what populations are most affected, and assess state and local trends. Asthma educators and health care providers worry that the loss of these numbers could be the biggest impact of the cuts, because it would mean a dearth of information crucial to forming educated recommendations and treatment plans.
“How do we justify the services we provide if the data isn’t there?” said Graciela Anaya, director of community health at the Central California Asthma Collaborative in Fresno.
Mitchell Grayson, chair of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation’s Medical Scientific Council, is similarly concerned.
“My fear is we’re going to live in a world that is frozen in Jan. 19, 2025, as far as data, because that was the last time you know that this information was safely collected,” he said.
Grayson, an allergist who practices in Columbus, Ohio, said he also worries government websites will delete important recommendations that asthma sufferers avoid heavy air pollution, get annual flu shots, and get covid-19 vaccines.
Disproportionate Risk
Asthma disproportionately affects communities of color because of “historic structural issues,” said Lynda Mitchell, CEO of the Asthma and Allergy Network, citing a higher likelihood of living in public housing or near highways and other pollution sources.
She and other experts in the field said cuts to diversity initiatives across federal agencies, combined with the rollback of environmental protections, will have an outsize impact on these at-risk populations.
In December, the Biden administration awarded nearly $1.6 billion through the EPA’s Community Change Grants program to help disadvantaged communities address pollution and climate threats. The Trump administration moved to cut this funding in March. The grant freezes, which have been temporarily blocked by the courts, are part of a broader effort by the Trump EPA to eliminate aid to environmental justice programs across the agency.
In 2023 and 2024, the National Institutes of Health’s Climate Change and Health Initiative received $40 million for research, including on the link between asthma and climate change. The Trump administration has moved to cut that money. And a March memo essentially halted all NIH grants focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI — funds many of the asthma programs serving low-income communities rely on to operate.
On top of those cuts, environmental advocates like Isabel González Whitaker of Memphis, Tennessee, worry that the proposed reversals of environmental regulations will further harm the health of communities like hers that are already reeling from the effects of climate change. Shelby County, home to Memphis, recently received an “F” on the American Lung Association’s annual report card for having so many high ozone days. González Whitaker is director of EcoMadres, a program within the national organization Moms for Clean Air that advocates for better environmental conditions for Latino communities.
“Urgent asthma needs in communities are getting defunded at a time when I just see things getting worse in terms of deregulation,” said González Whitaker, who took her 12-year-old son to the hospital because of breathing issues for the first time this year. “We’re being assaulted by this data and science, which is clearly stating that we need to be doing better around preserving the regulations.”
Back in California’s Imperial Valley — where the majority-Hispanic, working-class population surrounds California’s largest lake, the Salton Sea — is an area called Bombay Beach. Bejarano calls it the “forgotten community.” Homes there lack clean running water, because of naturally occurring arsenic in the groundwater, and residents frequently experience a smell like rotten eggs blowing off the drying lakebed, exposing decades of pesticide-tinged dirt.
In 2022, a 12-year-old girl died in Bombay Beach after an asthma attack. Bejarano said she later learned that the girl’s school had recommended that she take part in Comite Civico del Valle’s at-home asthma education program. She said the girl was on the waiting list when she died.
“It hit home. Her death showed the personal need we have here in Imperial County,” Bejarano said. “Deaths are preventable. Asthma is reversible. If you have asthma, you should be able to live a healthy life.”
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).
1 month 3 weeks ago
california, Public Health, Rural Health, States, Children's Health, HHS, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, texas, Trump Administration
KFF Health News' 'What the Health?': Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ Lands in Senate. Our 400th Episode!
The Host
Julie Rovner
KFF Health News
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.
After narrowly passing in the House in May, President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” has now arrived in the Senate, where Republicans are struggling to decide whether to pass it, change it, or — as Elon Musk, who recently stepped back from advising Trump, is demanding — kill it.
Adding fuel to the fire, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill as written would increase the number of Americans without health insurance by nearly 11 million over the next decade. That number would grow to approximately 16 million should Republicans also not extend additional subsidies for the Affordable Care Act, which expire at year’s end.
This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.
Panelists
Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call
Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico
Lauren Weber
The Washington Post
Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:
- Even before the CBO released estimates of how many Americans stand to lose health coverage under the House-passed budget reconciliation bill, Republicans in Washington were casting doubt on the nonpartisan office’s findings — as they did during their 2017 Affordable Care Act repeal effort.
- Responding to concerns about proposed Medicaid cuts, Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican, this week stood behind her controversial rejoinder at a town hall that “we’re all going to die.” The remark and its public response illuminated the problematic politics Republicans face in reducing benefits on which their constituents rely — and may foreshadow campaign fights to come.
- Journalists revealed that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s report on children’s health may have been generated at least in part by artificial intelligence. The telltale signs in the report of what are called “AI hallucinations” included citations to scientific studies that don’t exist and a garbled interpretation of the findings of other research, raising further questions about the validity of the report’s recommendations.
- And the Trump administration this week revoked Biden-era guidance on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Regardless, the underlying law instructing hospitals to care for those experiencing pregnancy emergencies still applies.
Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Arielle Zionts, who reported and wrote the latest “Bill of the Month” feature, about a Medicaid patient who had an emergency in another state and the big bill he got for his troubles. If you have an infuriating, outrageous, or baffling medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.
Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read (or wrote) this week that they think you should read, too:
Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Native Americans Hurt by Federal Health Cuts, Despite RFK Jr.’s Promises of Protection,” by Katheryn Houghton, Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez, and Arielle Zionts.
Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “‘They’re the Backbone’: Trump’s Targeting of Legal Immigrants Threatens Health Sector,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.
Lauren Weber: The New York Times’ “Take the Quiz: Could You Manage as a Poor American?” by Emily Badger and Margot Sanger-Katz.
Jessie Hellmann: The New York Times’ “A DNA Technique Is Finding Women Who Left Their Babies for Dead,” by Isabelle Taft.
Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:
- NOTUS.org’s “The MAHA Report Cites Studies That Don’t Exist,” by Emily Kennard and Margaret Manto.
- The Washington Post’s “White House MAHA Report May Have Garbled Science by Using AI, Experts Say,” by Lauren Weber and Caitlin Gilbert.
click to open the transcript
Transcript: Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ Lands in Senate. Our 400th Episode!
[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, June 5, 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 Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.
Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.
Rovner: Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.
Lauren Weber: Hello, hello.
Rovner: And Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call.
Jessie Hellmann: Hi there.
Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with my colleague Arielle Zionts, who reported and wrote the KFF Health News “Bill of the Month,” about a Medicaid patient who had a medical emergency out of state and got a really big bill to boot. But first the news. And buckle up — there is a lot of it.
We’ll start on Capitol Hill, where the Senate is back this week and turning its attention to that “Big Beautiful” budget reconciliation bill passed by the House last month, and we’ll get to the fights over it in a moment. But first, the Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday finished its analysis of the House-passed bill, and the final verdict is in. It would reduce federal health care spending by more than a trillion dollars, with a T, over the next decade. That’s largely from Medicaid but also significantly from the Affordable Care Act. And in a separate letter from CBO Wednesday afternoon, analysts projected that 10.9 million more people would be uninsured over the next decade as a result of the bill’s provisions.
Additionally, 5.1 million more people would lose ACA coverage as a result of the bill, in combination with letting the Biden-era enhanced subsidies expire, for a grand total of 16 million more people uninsured as a result of Congress’ action and inaction. I don’t expect that number is going to help this bill get passed in the Senate, will it?
Ollstein: We’re seeing a lot of what we saw during the Obamacare repeal fight in that, even before this report came out, Republicans were working to discredit the CBO in the eyes of the public and sow the seeds of mistrust ahead of time so that these pretty damaging numbers wouldn’t derail the effort. They did in that case, among other things. And so they could now, despite their protestations.
But I think they’re saying a combination of true things about the CBO, like it’s based on guesses and estimates and models and you have to predict what human behavior is going to be. Are people going to just drop coverage altogether? Are they going to do this? Are they going to do that? But these are the experts we have. This is the nonpartisan body that Congress has chosen to rely on, so you’re not really seeing them present their own credible sources and data. They’re more just saying, Don’t believe these guys.
Rovner: Yeah, and some of these things we know. We’ve seen. We’ve talked about the work requirement a million times, that when you have work requirements in Medicaid, the people who lose coverage are not people who refuse to work. It’s people who can’t navigate the bureaucracy. And when premiums go up, which they will for the Affordable Care Act, not just because they’re letting these extra subsidies expire but because they’re going back to the way premiums were calculated before 2017. The more expensive premiums get, the fewer people sign up. So it’s not exactly rocket science figuring out that you’re going to have a lot more people without health insurance as a result of this.
Ollstein: Honestly, it seems from the reactions so far that Republicans on the Hill are more impacted by the CBO’s deficit increase estimates than they are by the number of uninsured-people increase estimates.
Rovner: And that frankly feels a little more inexplicable to me that the Republicans are just saying, This won’t add to the deficit. And the CBO — it’s arithmetic. It’s not higher math. It’s like if you cut taxes this much so there’s less money coming in, there’s going to be less money and a bigger deficit. I’m not a math person, but I can do that part, at least in my head.
Jessie, you’re on the Hill. What are you seeing over in the Senate? We don’t even have really a schedule for how this is going to go yet, right? We don’t know if the committees are going to do work, if they’re just going to plunk the House bill on the floor and amend it. It’s all sort of a big question mark.
Hellmann: Yeah, we don’t have text yet from any of the committees that have health jurisdiction. There’s been a few bills from other committees, but obviously Senate Finance has a monumental task ahead of them. They are the ones that have jurisdiction over Medicaid. Their members said that they have met dozens of times already to work out the details. The members of the Finance Committee were at the White House yesterday with President [Donald] Trump to talk about the bill.
It doesn’t seem like they got into the nitty-gritty policy details. And the message from the president seemed to mostly be, like, Just pass this bill and don’t make any major changes to it. Which is a tall order, I think, for some of the members like [Sens.] Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, and even a few others that are starting to come out and raise concerns about some of the changes that the House made, like to the way that states finance their share of Medicaid spending through the provider tax.
Lisa Murkowski has raised concerns about how soon the work requirements would take effect, because, she was saying, Alaska doesn’t have the infrastructure right now and that would take a little bit to work out. So there are clearly still a lot of details that need to be worked out.
Rovner: Well, I would note that Senate Republicans were already having trouble communicating about this bill even before these latest CBO numbers came out. At a town hall meeting last weekend in Iowa, where nearly 1 in 5 residents are on Medicaid, Republican Sen. Joni Ernst had an unfortunate reaction to a heckler in the audience, and, rather than apologize — well, here’s what she posted on Instagram.
Sen. Joni Ernst: Hello, everyone. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely apologize for a statement that I made yesterday at my town hall. See, I was in the process of answering a question that had been asked by an audience member when a woman who was extremely distraught screamed out from the back corner of the auditorium, “People are going to die!” And I made an incorrect assumption that everyone in the auditorium understood that, yes, we are all going to perish from this earth.
So I apologize. And I’m really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the tooth fairy as well. But for those that would like to see eternal and everlasting life, I encourage you to embrace my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Rovner: And what you can’t see, just to add some emphasis, Ernst recorded this message in a cemetery with tombstones visible behind her. I know it is early in this debate, but I feel like we might look back on this moment later like [Sen. John] McCain’s famous thumbs-down in the 2017 repeal-and-replace debate. Or is it too soon? Lauren.
Weber: For all the messaging they’ve tried to do around Medicaid cuts, for all the messaging, We’re all going to die I cannot imagine was on the list of approved talking points. And at the end of the day, I think it gets at how uncomfortable it is to face the reality of your constituents saying, I no longer have health care. This has been true since the beginning of time. Once you roll out an entitlement program, it’s very difficult to roll it back.
So I think that this is just a preview of how poorly this will go for elected officials, because there will be plenty of people thrown off of Medicaid who are also Republicans. That could come back to bite them in the midterms and in general, I think, could lead — combine it with the anti-DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] fervor— I think you could have a real recipe for quite the feedback.
Rovner: Yes, and we’re going to talk about DOGE in a second. As we all now know, Elon Musk’s time as a government employee has come to an end, and we’ll talk about his legacy in a minute. But on his way out the door, he let loose a barrage of criticism of the bill, calling it, among other things, a, quote “disgusting abomination” that will saddle Americans with, quote, “crushingly unsustainable debt.”
So basically we have a handful of Republicans threatening to oppose the bill because it adds to the deficit, another handful of Republicans worried about the health cuts — and then what? Any ideas how this battle plays out. I think in the House they managed to get it through by just saying, Keep the ball rolling and send it to the Senate. Now the Senate, it’s going to be harder, I think, for the Senate to say, Oh, we’ll keep the ball rolling and send it back to the House.
Ollstein: Well, and to jump off Lauren’s point, I think the political blowback is really going to be because this is insult on top of injury in terms of not only are people going to lose Medicaid, Republicans, if this passes, but they’re being told that the only people who are going to lose Medicaid are undocumented immigrants and the undeserving. So not only do you lose Medicaid because of choices made by the people you elected, but then they turn around and imply or directly say you never deserved it in the first place. That’s pretty tough.
Rovner: And we’re all going to die.
Ollstein: And we’re all going to die.
Weber: Just to add onto this, I do think it’s important to note that work requirements poll very popularly among the American people. A majority of Americans here “work requirements” and say, Gee, that sounds like a commonsense solution. What the reality that we’ve talked about in this podcast many, many times is, that it ends up kicking off people for bureaucratic reasons. It’s a way to reduce the rolls. It doesn’t necessarily encourage work.
But to the average bear, it sounds great. Yes, absolutely. Why wouldn’t we want more people working? So I do think there is some messaging there, but at the end of the day, like Alice said, like I pointed out, they have not figured out the messaging enough, and it is going to add insult to injury to imply to some of these folks that they did not deserve their health care.
Ollstein: And what’s really baffling is they are running around saying that Medicaid is going to people who should never have been on the program in the first place, able-bodied people without children who are not too young and not too old, sort of implying that these people are enrolling against the wishes of the program’s creators.
But Congress explicitly voted for these people to be eligible for the program. And then after the Supreme Court made it optional, all of these states, most states, voted either by a direct popular vote or through the legislature to extend Medicaid to this population. And now they’re turning around and saying they were never supposed to be on it in the first place. We didn’t get here by accident or fraud.
Rovner: Or by executive order.
Ollstein: Exactly.
Rovner: Well, even before the Senate digs in, there’s still a lot of stuff that got packed into that House bill, some of it at the last minute that most people still aren’t aware of. And I’m not talking about [Rep.] Marjorie Taylor Greene and AI, although that, too, among other things. And shout out here to our podcast panelist Maya Goldman over at Axios. The bill would reduce the amount of money medical students could borrow, threatening the ability of people to train to become doctors, even while the nation is already suffering a doctor shortage.
It would also make it harder for medical residents to pay their loans back and do a variety of other things. The idea behind this is apparently to force medical schools to lower their tuition, which would be nice, but this feels like a very indirect way of doing it.
Weber: I just don’t think it’s very popular in an era in which we’re constantly talking about physician shortages and encouraging folks that are from minority communities or underserved communities to become primary care physicians or infectious disease physicians, to go to the communities that need them, that reflect them, to then say, Look, we’re going to cut your loans. And what that’s going to do — short of RFK [Robert F. Kennedy Jr.], who has toyed with playing with the code. So who knows? We could see.
But as the current structure stands, here’s the deal: You have a lot of medical debt. You are incentivized to go into a more lucrative specialty. That means that you’re not going into primary care. You’re not going into infectious disease care. You’re not going to rural America, because they can’t pay you what it costs to repay all of your loans. So, I do think — and, it was interesting. I think the Guardian spoke to some of the folks from the study that said that this could change it. That study was based off of metrics from 2006, and for some reason they were like, The financial private pay loans are not really going to cut it today.
I find it hard to believe this won’t get fixed, to be quite honest, just because I think hating on medical students is usually a losing battle in the current system. But who knows?
Rovner: And hospitals have a lot of clout.
Weber: Yeah.
Rovner: Although there’s a lot of things in this bill that they would like to fix. And, I don’t know. Maybe—
Weber: Well, and hospitals have a lot of financial incentive, because essentially they make medical residents indentured servants. So, yeah, they also would like them to have less loans.
Rovner: As I mentioned earlier, Elon Musk has decamped from DOGE, but in his wake is a lot of disruption at the Department of Health and Human Services and not necessarily a lot of savings. Thousands of federal workers are still in limbo on administrative leave, to possibly be reinstated or possibly not, with no one doing their jobs in the meantime. Those who are still there are finding their hands tied by a raft of new rules, including the need to get a political-appointee sign-off for even the most routine tasks.
And around the country, thousands of scientific grants and contracts have been summarily frozen or terminated for no stated cause, as the administration seeks to punish universities for a raft of supposed crimes that have nothing to do with what’s being studied. I know that it just happened, but how is DOGE going to be remembered? I imagine not for all of the efficiencies that it has wrung out of the health care system.
Ollstein: Well, one, I wouldn’t be so sure things are over, either between Elon and the Trump administration or what the amorphous blob that is DOGE. I think that the overall slash-and-burn of government is going to continue in some form. They are trying to formalize it by sending a bill to Congress to make these cuts, that they already made without Congress’ permission, official. We’ll see where that goes, but I think that it’s not an ending. It’s just morphing into whatever its next iteration is.
Rovner: I would note that the first rescission request that the administration has sent up formally includes getting rid of USAID [the U.S. Agency for International Development] and PEPFAR [the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] and public broadcasting, which seems unlikely to garner a majority in both houses.
Ollstein: Except, like I said, this is asking them to rubber-stamp something they’re already trying to do without them. Congress doesn’t like its power being infringed on, especially appropriators. They guard that power very jealously. Now, we have seen them a little quieter in this administration than maybe you would’ve thought, but I think there are some who, even if they agree on the substance of the cuts, might object to the process and just being asked to rubber-stamp it after the fact.
Rovner: Well, meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy continues to try to remake what’s left of HHS, although his big reorganization is currently blocked by a federal judge. And it turns out that his big MAHA, “Make America Healthy Again,” report may have been at least in part written by AI, which apparently became obvious when the folks at the news service NOTUS decided to do something that was never on my reporting bingo card, which is to check the footnotes in the report to see if they were real, which apparently many are not. Then, Lauren, you and your colleagues took that yet another step. So tell us about that.
Weber: Yeah. NOTUS did a great job. They went through all the footnotes to find out that several of the studies didn’t exist, and my colleagues and I saw that and said, Hm, let’s look a little closer at these footnotes and see. And what we were able to do in speaking with AI experts is find telltale signs of AI. It’s basically a sign of artificial intelligence when things are hallucinated — which is what they call it — which is when it sounds right but isn’t completely factual, which is one of the dangers of using AI.
And it appears that some of AI was used in the footnotes of this MAHA report, again, to, as NOTUS pointed out, create studies that don’t exist. It also kind of garbled some of the science on the other pieces of this. We found something called “oaicite,” which is a marker of OpenAI system, throughout the report. And at the end of the day, it casts a lot of questions on the report as a whole and: How exactly did it get made? What is the science behind this report?
And even before anyone found any of these footnotes of any of this, a fair amount of these studies that this report cites to back up its thesis are a stretch. Even putting aside the fake studies and the garbled studies, I think it’s important to also note that a lot of the studies the report cites, a lot of what Kennedy does, take it a lot further than what they actually say.
Rovner: So, this is all going well. Meanwhile, there is continuing confusion in vaccine land after Secretary Kennedy, flanked by FDA [Food and Drug Administration] Commissioner Marty Makary and NIH [National Institutes of Health] Director Jay Bhattacharya, announced in a video on X that the department would no longer recommend covid vaccines for pregnant women and healthy children, sidestepping the expert advice of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and its advisory committee of experts.
The HHS officials say people who may still be at risk can discuss whether to get the vaccine with their doctors, but if the vaccines are no longer on the recommended list, then insurance is less likely to cover them and medical facilities are less likely to stock them. Paging Sen. [Bill] Cassidy, who still, as far as I can tell, hasn’t said anything about the secretary’s violation of his promise to the senator during his confirmation hearings that he wouldn’t mess with the vaccine schedule. Have we heard a peep from Sen. Cassidy about any of this?
Ollstein: I have not, but a lot of the medical field has been very vocal and very upset. I was actually at the annual conference of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists when this news broke, and they were just so confused and so upset. They had seen pregnant patients die of covid before the vaccines were available, or because there was so much misinformation and mistrust about the vaccines’ safety for pregnant people that a lot of people avoided it, and really suffered the consequences of avoiding it.
A lot of the issue was that there were not good studies of the vaccine in pregnant people at the beginning of the rollout. There have since been, and those studies have since shown that it is safe and effective for pregnant people. But it was, in a lot of people’s minds, too late, because they already got it in their head that it was unsafe or untested. So the OB-GYNs at this conference were really, really worried about this.
Rovner: And, confusingly, the CDC on its website amended its recommendations to leave children recommended but not pregnant women, which is kind of the opposite of, I think, what most of the medical experts were recommending. Jessie, you were about to add something.
Hellmann: I just feel like the confusion is the point. I think Kennedy has made it a pattern now to get out ahead of an official agency decision and kind of set the narrative, even if it is completely opposite of what his agencies are recommending or are stating. He’s done this with a report that the CDC came out with autism, when he said rising autism cases aren’t because of more recognition and the CDC report said it’s a large part because of more recognition.
He’s done this with food dyes. He said, We’re banning food dyes. And then it turns out they just asked manufacturers to stop putting food dyes into it. So I think it’s part of, he’s this figurehead of the agency and he likes to get out in front of it and just state something as fact, and that is what people are going to remember, not something on a CDC webpage that most people aren’t going to be able to find.
Rovner: Yeah, it sounds like President Trump. It’s like, saying it is more important than doing it, in a lot of cases. So of course there’s abortion news this week, too. The Trump administration on Tuesday reversed the Biden administration guidance regarding EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Biden officials, in the wake of the overturn of Roe v. Wade three years ago, had reminded hospitals that take Medicare and Medicaid, which is all of them, basically, that the requirement to provide emergency care includes abortion when warranted, regardless of state bans. Now, Alice, this wasn’t really unexpected. In fact, it’s happening later than I think a lot of people expected it to happen. How much impact is it going to have, beyond a giant barrage of press releases from both sides in the abortion debate?
Ollstein: Yeah, so, OK, it’s important for people to remember that what the Biden administration, the guidance they put out was just sort of an interpretation of the underlying law. So the underlying law isn’t changing. The Biden administration was just saying: We are stressing that the underlying law means in the abortion context, in the post-Dobbs context, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, that hospitals cannot turn away a pregnant woman who’s having a medical crisis. And if the necessary treatment to save her life or stabilize her is an abortion, then that’s what they have to do, regardless of the laws in the state.
In a sense, nothing’s changed, because EMTALA itself is still in place, but it does send a signal that could make hospitals feel more comfortable turning people away or denying treatment, since the government is signaling that they don’t consider that a violation. Now, I will say, you’re totally right that this was expected. In the big lawsuit over this that is playing out now in Idaho, one of the state’s hospitals intervened as a plaintiff, basically in anticipation of this happening, saying, The Trump administration might not defend EMTALA in the abortion context, so we’re going to do it for them, basically, to keep this case alive.
Rovner: And I would point out that ProPublica just won a Pulitzer for its series detailing the women who were turned away and then died because they were having pregnancy complications. So we do know that this is happening. Interestingly, the day before the administration’s announcement, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists put out a new, quote, “practice advisory” on the treatment of preterm pre-labor rupture of membranes, which is one of the more common late-pregnancy complications that result in abortion, because of the risk of infection to the pregnant person.
Reading from that guidance, quote, “the Practice Advisory affirms that ob-gyns and other clinicians must be able to intervene and, in cases of previable and periviable PPROM” — that’s the premature rupture of membranes — “provide abortion care before the patient becomes critically ill.” Meanwhile, this statement came out Wednesday from the American College of Emergency Physicians, quote, ,“Regardless of variances in the regulatory landscape from one administration to another, emergency physicians remain committed not just by law, but by their professional oath, to provide this care.”
So on the one hand, professional organizations are speaking out more strongly than I think we’ve seen them do it before, but they’re not the ones that are in the emergency room facing potential jail time for, Do I obey the federal law or do I obey the state ban?
Ollstein: And when I talk to doctors who are grappling with this, they say that even with the Biden administration’s interpretation of EMTALA, that didn’t solve the problem for them. It was some measure of protection and confidence. But still, exactly like you said, they’re still caught in between seemingly conflicting state and federal law. And really a lot of them, based on what they told me, were saying that the threat of the state law is more severe. It’s more immediate.
It means being charged with a felony, being charged with a crime if they do provide the abortion, versus it’s a federal penalty, it’s not on the doctor itself. It’s on the institution. And it may or may not happen at some point. So when you have criminal charges on one side and maybe some federal regulation or an investigation on the other side, what are you going to choose?
Rovner: And it’s hard to imagine this administration doing a lot of these investigations. They seem to be turning to other things. Well, we will watch this space, and obviously this is all still playing out in court. All right, that is this week’s news, or at least as much as we could squeeze in. Now we’ll play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Arielle Zionts, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits.
I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast KFF Health News’ Arielle Zionts, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News “Bill of the Month.” Arielle, welcome back.
Arielle Zionts: Hi. Thanks for having me.
Rovner: So this month’s patient has Medicaid as his health insurance, and he left his home state of Florida to visit family in South Dakota for the holidays, where he had a medical emergency. Tell us who he is and what happened that landed him in the hospital.
Zionts: Sure. So I spoke with Hans Wirt. He was visiting family in the Black Hills. That’s where Mount Rushmore is and its beautiful outdoors. He was at a water park, following his son up and down the stairs and getting kind of winded. And at first he thought it might just be the elevation difference, because in Florida it’s like 33 feet above sea level. Here it’s above 3,000 in Rapid City.
But then they got him back to the hotel room and he was getting a lot worse, his breathing, and then he turned pale. And his 12-year-old son is the one who called 911. And medics were like, Yep, you’re having a heart attack. And they took him to the hospital in town, and that is the only place to go. There’s just one hospital with an ER in Rapid City.
Rovner: So the good news is that he was ultimately OK, but the bad news is that the hospital tried to stick them with the bill. How big was it?
Zionts: It was nearly $78,000.
Rovner: Wow. So let’s back up a bit. How did Mr. Wirt come to be on Medicaid?
Zionts: Yeah. So it is significant that he is from Florida, because that is one of the 10 states that has not opted in to expand Medicaid. So in Florida, if you’re an adult, you can’t just be low-income. You have to also be disabled or caring for a minor child. And Hans says that’s his case. He works part time at a family business, but he also cares for his 12-year-old son, who is also on Medicaid.
Rovner: So Medicaid patients, as we know, are not supposed to be charged even small copays for care in most cases. Is that still the case when they get care in other states?
Zionts: So Medicaid will not pay for patient care if they are getting more of an elective or non-medically necessary kind of optional procedure or care in another state. But there are several exceptions, and one of the exceptions is if they have an emergency in another state. So federal law says that state Medicaid programs have to reimburse those hospitals if it was for emergency care.
Rovner: And presumably a heart attack is an emergency.
Zionts: Yes.
Rovner: So why did the hospital try to bill him anyway? They should have billed Florida Medicaid, right?
Zionts: So what’s interesting is while there’s a law that says the Medicaid program has to reimburse the hospital, there’s no law saying the hospital has to send the bill to Medicaid. And that was really interesting to learn. In this case, the hospital, it’s called Monument Health, and they said they only bill plans in South Dakota and four of our bordering states. So basically they said for them to bill for the Medicaid, they would have to enroll.
And they say they don’t do that in every state, because there is a separate application process for each state. And their spokesperson described it as a burdensome process. So in this case, they billed Hans instead.
Rovner: So what eventually happened with this bill? He presumably didn’t have $78,000 to spare.
Zionts: Correct. Yeah. And he had told them that, and he said they only offered, Hey, you can set up a payment plan. But that would’ve still been really expensive, the monthly payments. So he reached out to KFF Health News, and I had sent my questions to the hospital, and then a few days later I get a text from Hans and he says, Hey, my balance is at zero now. He and I both eventually learned that that’s because the hospital paid for his care through a program called Charity Care.
All nonprofit hospitals are required to have this program, which provides free or very discounted pricing for patients who are uninsured or very underinsured. And the hospital said that they screen everyone for this program before sending them to collections. But what that meant is that for months, Hans was under the impression that he was getting this bill. And he was, got a notice saying, This is your last warning before we send you to collection.
Rovner: So, maybe they would’ve done it anyway, or maybe you gave them a nudge.
Zionts: They say they would’ve done it anyways.
Rovner: OK. So what’s the takeaway here? It can’t be that if you have Medicaid, you can’t travel to another state to visit family at Christmas.
Zionts: Right. So Hans made that same joke. He said, quote, “If I get sick and have a heart attack, I have to be sure that I do that here in Florida now instead of some other state.” Obviously, he’s kidding. You can’t control when you have an emergency. So the takeaway is that you do risk being billed and that if you don’t know how to advocate yourself, you might get sent to collections. But I also learned that there’s things that you can do.
So you could file a complaint with your state Medicaid program, and also, if you have a managed-care program, and they might have — you should ask for a caseworker, like, Hey, can you communicate with the hospital? Or you can contact an attorney. There’s free legal-aid ones. An attorney I spoke with said that she would’ve immediately sent a letter to the hospital saying, Look, you need to either register with Florida Medicaid and submit it. If not, you need to offer the Charity Care. So that’s the advice.
Rovner: So, basically, be ready to advocate for yourself.
Zionts: Yes.
Rovner: OK. Arielle Zionts, thank you so much.
Zionts: Thank you.
Rovner: OK. We’re back, and it’s 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, why don’t you go first this week?
Hellmann: My story is from The New York Times. It’s called “A [DNA] Technique Is Finding Women Who Left Their Babies for Dead,” which I don’t know how I feel about that headline, but the story was really interesting. It’s about how police departments are using DNA technology to find the mothers of infants that had been found dead years and years ago. And it gets a little bit into just the complicated situation.
Some of these women have gone on to have families. They have successful careers. And now some of them are being charged with murder, and some who have been approached about this have unfortunately died by suicide. And it just gets into the ethics of the issue and what police and doctors, families, should be considering about the context around some of these situations, about what the circumstances were, in some cases, 40 years ago and what should be done with that.
Rovner: Really thought-provoking story. Lauren.
Weber: With credit to Julie, too, because she brought this up again, was brought back to a classic from The New York Times back in 2020, which is called “Take a Quiz: Could You Manage as a Poor American?” And here are the questions: I will read them for the group.
Rovner: And I will point out that this is once again relevant. That’s why it was brought back.
Weber: It’s once again relevant, and one of them is, “Do you have paper mail you plan to read that has been unopened for more than a week?” Yes. I’m looking at paper mail on my desk. “Have you forgotten to pay a utility bill on time?” If I didn’t set up auto pay, I probably would forget to pay a utility bill on time. “Have you received a government document in the mail that you did not understand?” Many times. “Have you missed a doctor’s appointment because you forgot you scheduled it or something came up?”
These are the basic facts that can derail someone from having access to health care or saddle them, because they lose access to health care and don’t realize it, with massive hospital bills. And this is a lot of what we could see in the coming months if some of these Medicaid changes come through. And I just, I think I would challenge a lot of people to think seriously about how much mail they leave unopened and what that could mean for them, especially if you are living in different homes, if you are moving frequently, etc. This paperwork burden is something to definitely be considered.
Rovner: Yeah, I think we should sort of refloat this every time we have another one of these debates. Alice.
Ollstein: So I wanted to recommend something I wrote [“‘They’re the Backbone’: Trump’s Targeting of Legal Immigrants Threatens Health Sector”]. It was my last story before taking some time off this summer. It is about the intersection of Trump’s immigration policies and our health care system. And so this is jumping off the Supreme Court allowing the Trump administration to strip legal status from hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Again, these are people who came legally through a designated program, and they are being made undocumented by the Trump administration, with the Supreme Court’s blessing. And tens of thousands of them are health care workers.
And so I visited an elder care facility in Northern Virginia that was set to lose 65 staff members, and I talked to the residents and the other workers about how this would affect them, and the owner. And it was just a microcosm of the damage this could have on our health sector more broadly. Elder care is especially immigrant-heavy in its workforce, and everyone there was saying there just are not the people to replace these folks.
And not only is that the case right now, but as the baby boomer generation ages and requires care, the shortages we see now are going to be nothing compared to what we could see down the road. With the lower birth rates here, we’re just not producing enough workers to do these jobs. The piece also looks into how public health and management of infectious diseases is also being worsened by these immigration raids and crackdowns and deportations. So, would love people to take a look.
Rovner: I’m so glad you did this story, because it’s something that I keep running up and down screaming. And you can tell us why you’re taking some time off this summer, Alice.
Ollstein: I’m writing a book. Hopefully it will be out next year, and I can’t wait to tell everyone more about it.
Rovner: Excellent. All right. My extra credit this week is from my KFF Health News colleagues Katheryn Houghton, Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez, and Arielle Zionts, who you just heard talking about her “Bill of the Month,” and it’s called “Native Americans Hurt by Federal Health Cuts, Despite RFK Jr.’s Promises of Protection.” And that sums it up pretty well. The HHS secretary had a splashy photo op earlier this year out west, where he promised to prioritize Native American health. But while he did spare the Indian Health Service from personnel cuts, it turns out that the Native American population is also served by dozens of other HHS programs that were cut, some of them dramatically, everything from home energy assistance to programs that improve access to healthy food, to preventing overdoses. The Native community has been disproportionately hurt by the purging of DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] programs, because Native populations have systematically been subjected to unequal treatment over many generations. It’s a really good if somewhat infuriating story.
OK. That is this week’s show. Before we go, if you will indulge me for a minute, this is our 400th episode of “What the Health?” We launched in 2017 during that year’s repeal-and-replace debate. I want to thank all of my panelists, current and former, for teaching me something new every single week. And everyone here at KFF Health News who makes this podcast possible. That includes not only my chief partners in crime, Francis Ying and Emmarie Huetteman, but also the copy desk and social media and web teams who do all the behind-the-scenes work that brings our podcast to you every week. And of course, big thanks to you, the listeners, who have stuck with us all these years.
I won’t promise you 400 more episodes, but I will keep doing this as long as you keep wanting it. 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. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks these days? Jessie?
Hellmann: @jessiehellmann on X and Bluesky, and LinkedIn.
Rovner: Lauren.
Weber: I’m @LaurenWeberHP on X and on Bluesky, shockingly, now.
Rovner: Alice.
Ollstein: @alicemiranda on Bluesky and @AliceOllstein on X.
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).
1 month 3 weeks ago
COVID-19, Insurance, Medicaid, Multimedia, Public Health, States, The Health Law, Abortion, Biden Administration, Bill Of The Month, CBO, Children's Health, Doctors, Emergency Medicine, HHS, KFF Health News' 'What The Health?', Medical Education, Podcasts, reproductive health, Trump Administration, U.S. Congress, vaccines, Women's Health
KFF Health News' 'What the Health?': Bill With Billions in Health Program Cuts Passes House
The Host
Julie Rovner
KFF Health News
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.
With only a single vote to spare, the House passed a controversial budget bill that includes billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy, along with billions of dollars of cuts to Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and the food stamp program — most of which will affect those at the lower end of the income scale. But the bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate.
Meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released a report from his commission to “Make America Healthy Again” that described threats to the health of the American public — but notably included nothing on threats from tobacco, gun violence, or a lack of health insurance.
This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.
Panelists
Anna Edney
Bloomberg News
Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet
@sarahkarlin-smith.bsky.social
Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico
Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:
- House Republicans passed their “big, beautiful” bill 215-214 this week, with one Republican critic voting present. But the Senate may have its own “big, beautiful” rewrite. Some conservative senators who worry about federal debt are concerned that the bill is not fully paid for and would add to the budget deficit. Others, including some red-state Republicans, say the bill’s cuts to Medicaid and food assistance go too far and would hurt low-income Americans. The bill’s cuts would represent the biggest reductions to Medicaid in the program’s 60-year history.
- Many of the bill’s Medicaid cuts would come from adding work requirements. Most people receiving Medicaid already work, but such requirements in Arkansas and Georgia showed that people often lose coverage under these rules because they have trouble documenting their work hours, including because of technological problems. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated an earlier version of the bill would reduce the number of people with Medicaid by at least 8.6 million over a decade. The requirements also could add a burden for employers. The bill’s work requirements are relatively broad and would affect people who are 19 to 64 years old.
- People whose Medicaid coverage is canceled also would no longer qualify for ACA subsidies for marketplace plans. Medicare also would be affected, because the bill would be expected to trigger an across-the-board sequestration cut.
- The bill also would impact abortion by effectively banning it in ACA marketplace plans, which would disrupt a compromise struck in the 2010 law. And the bill would block funding for Planned Parenthood in Medicaid, although that federal money is used for other care such as cancer screenings, not abortions. In the past, the Senate parliamentarian has said that kind of provision is not allowed under budget rules, but some Republicans want to take the unusual step of overruling the parliamentarian.
- This week, FDA leaders released covid-19 vaccine recommendations in a medical journal. They plan to limit future access to the vaccines to people 65 and older and others who are at high risk of serious illness if infected, and they want to require manufacturers to do further clinical trials to show whether the vaccines benefit healthy younger people. There are questions about whether this is legal, which products would be affected, when this would take effect, and whether it’s ethical to require these studies.
- HHS released a report on chronic disease starting in childhood. The report doesn’t include many new findings but is noteworthy in part because of what it doesn’t discuss — gun violence, the leading cause of death for children and teens in the United States; tobacco; the lack of health insurance coverage; and socioeconomic factors that affect access to healthy food.
Also this week, Rovner interviews University of California-Davis School of Law professor and abortion historian Mary Ziegler about her new book on the past and future of the “personhood” movement aimed at granting legal rights to fetuses and embryos.
Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week they think you should read, too:
Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “White House Officials Wanted To Put Federal Workers ‘in Trauma.’ It’s Working,” by William Wan and Hannah Natanson.
Alice Miranda Ollstein: NPR’s “Diseases Are Spreading. The CDC Isn’t Warning the Public Like It Was Months Ago,” by Chiara Eisner.
Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “The Potential Cancer, Health Risks Lurking in One Popular OTC Drug,” by Anna Edney.
Sarah Karlin-Smith: The Farmingdale Observer’s “Scientists Have Been Studying Remote Work for Four Years and Have Reached a Very Clear Conclusion: ‘Working From Home Makes Us Happier,’” by Bob Rubila.
Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:
- The New York Times’ “As Congress Debates Cutting Medicaid, a Major Study Shows It Saves Lives,” by Sarah Kliff and Margot Sanger-Katz.
- NBC News’ “Georgia Mother Says She Is Being Forced To Keep Brain-Dead Pregnant Daughter Alive Under Abortion Ban Law,” by Minyvonne Burke.
- The Washington Post’s “Trump and GOP’s Tax Bill Would Force Cuts to Medicare, CBO Says,” by Jacob Bogage and Abha Bhattarai.
- The New England Journal of Medicine’s “An Evidence-Based Approach to Covid-19 Vaccination,” by Vinay Prasad and Martin A. Makary.
click to open the transcript
Transcript: Bill With Billions in Health Program Cuts Passes House
[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 Friday, May 23, at 10 a.m. As always, and particularly this week, 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 Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.
Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.
Rovner: Anna Edney of Bloomberg News.
Anna Edney: Hi, everybody.
Rovner: And Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.
Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hello there.
Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with law professor and abortion historian Mary Ziegler, who has a new book out on the history and possible future of the “personhood” movement. But first, this week’s news.
So, against all odds and many predictions, including my own, the House around 7 a.m. Thursday morning, after being in session all night, passed President [Donald] Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill — that is its actual, official name — by a vote of 215-214, with one Republican voting present. Before we get into the details of the House-passed bill, what are the prospects for this budget reconciliation bill in this form in the Senate? Very different, I would think.
Ollstein: Yeah, this is not going to come out the way it went in. Senate is already openly talking about a “‘One, Big Beautiful’ Rewrite” — that was the headline at Politico.
And you’re going to see some of the same dynamics. You’re going to see hard-liners saying this doesn’t go far enough, this actually adds a lot to the deficit even with all of the deep cuts to government programs. And you’re going to have moderates who have a lot of people in their state who depend on Medicaid and other programs that are set to be cut who say this goes too far. And so you’re going to have that same push and pull. And the House, barely, by one vote, got this through. And so we’ll see if the Senate is able to do the same.
Rovner: Yeah, so all eyes on [Sen.] John McCain in 2017. This year it could be all eyes on Josh Hawley, I suspect, the very conservative senator from Missouri who keeps saying “Don’t touch Medicaid.”
But back to the House bill. We don’t have official scores yet from the Congressional Budget Office, and we won’t for a while, I suspect. But given some last-minute changes made to pacify conservatives who, as Alice pointed out, said this bill didn’t cut deeply enough, I think it’s clear that if it became law in this form, it would represent the biggest cuts to federal health programs in the 60-year history of Medicare and Medicaid.
Those last-minute changes also took pretty square aim at the Affordable Care Act, too, so much that I think it’s safe to call this even more than a partial repeal of the health law. And Medicare does not go unscathed in this measure, either, despite repeated promises by President Trump on the campaign trail and since he took office.
Let’s take these one at a time, starting with Medicaid. I would note that at a meeting with House Republicans on Tuesday, President Trump told them not to expletive around with Medicaid. You can go look up the exact quote yourself if you like. But apparently he’s OK with the $700 billion plus that would be cut in the bill, which Republicans say is just waste, fraud, and abuse. Where does that money come from? And would Medicaid really continue to cover everyone who’s eligible now, which is kind of what the president and moderate Republicans are promising?
Edney: Well, it sounds like the bulk of it is coming from the work requirements that Alice mentioned earlier. And would it be able to cover them? Sure, but will it? No, in the sense that, as Alice has talked about often on this podcast, it’s basically a time tax. It’s not easy to comply with. All federal regulations, they’re not going to a website and putting in what you did for work. Particularly, if you are a freelancer or something, it can be really difficult to meet all the requirements that they’re looking for. And also, for some people, they just don’t have the ability, even the internet, to be able to do that reliably. So they’re going to save money because people are going to lose their health care.
Rovner: I saw a lot of people referring to them this week not as work requirements anymore but as work reporting requirements. Somebody suggested it was like the equivalent of having to file your income taxes every month. It’s not just check a box and say, I worked this month. It’s producing documentation. And a lot of people have jobs that are inconsistent. They may work some hours some week and other hours the other week. And even people who work for small businesses, that would put an enormous burden on the employers to come up with all this.
Obviously, the CBO thinks that a lot of people won’t be able to do this and therefore people are going to lose their health insurance. But Alice, as you have told us numerous times when we did this in Arkansas, it’s not that people aren’t working — it’s that people aren’t successfully reporting their work.
Ollstein: Right. And we’ve seen this in Georgia, too, where this has been implemented, where there are many different ways that people who are working lose their insurance with this. People who don’t have good internet access struggle. People who have fluctuating work schedules, whether it’s agricultural work, tourism work, things that are more seasonal, they can’t comply with this strict monthly requirement.
So there are numerous reports from the ground of people who should be eligible losing their coverage. And I’ll note that one of the last-minute changes the House made was moving up the start date of the requirements. And I’m hearing a lot of state officials and advocates warn that that gives states less time to set up a system where people won’t fall through the cracks. And so the predicted larger savings is in part because they imagine more people will be kicked off the program.
Rovner: It’s also the most stringent work requirement we’ve seen. It would cover people from age 19 through age 64, like right up until you’re eligible for Medicare. And if you lose Medicaid because you fail to meet these reporting requirements, you’re no longer eligible for a subsidy to buy insurance in the ACA exchange. Is there a policy point to this? Or are they just trying to get the most people off the program so they can get the most savings?
Edney: If you ask Republicans, they would tell you: We’re going to get people back working. We’re going to give them the pride of working — as if people don’t want that on their own. But the actual outcome is not that people end up working more. And there are cases even where they lose their health insurance and can’t work a job they already had. On the surface, and this is why it’s such a popular program, because it seems like it would get more people working. Even a large swath of Democrats support the idea when they just hear the name — of voters. But the actual outcome, that doesn’t happen. People aren’t in Medicaid because they aren’t working.
Rovner: Right. And I get to say for the millionth time, nobody is sitting on their couch living on their Medicaid coverage.
Edney: Right, right.
Rovner: There’s no money that comes with Medicaid. It’s just health insurance. The health providers get paid for Medicaid and occasionally the managed-care companies. But there’s no check to the beneficiary, so there’s no way to live on your Medicaid.
As Alice points out, most of the people who are working and have Medicaid are working at jobs, obviously, that don’t offer employer health insurance. So having, in many cases, as you say, Anna, having Medicaid is what enables you to work.
All right, well, our podcast pals Margot Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff have an excellent Medicaid story out this week on a new study that looks very broadly at Medicaid and finds that it actually does improve the health of its beneficiaries. Now this seems logical, but that has been quite a talking point for Republicans for many years, that we spend all this money and it doesn’t produce better health, because we’ve had a lot of studies that have been kind of neither here nor there on this.
Do we finally have proof that Democrats need? Because I have heard, over many years — there was a big Oregon study in 2011 that found that it helped people financially and that it helped their mental health, but there was not a lot of physical health benefit that they saw. Of course, it was a brief. It was like two years. And it takes a longer time to figure out the importance of health insurance. But I’m wondering if maybe the Democrats will finally be able to put down that talking point. I didn’t hear it, actually, as much this week as I have in years past: Why are we spending all this money on Medicaid when we don’t know whether it’s producing better health?
Karlin-Smith: One of the interesting things I thought about this study and sort of the timing of it, post-Obamacare expansion of Medicaid and more younger people being covered, is that it seems to really show that, not only does this study show it saves lives, but it’s really helping these younger populations.
And I think there are some theories as to why it might have been harder to show the economic cost-effectiveness benefits people were looking for before, when you had Medicaid covering populations that were already either severely ill or older. Which doesn’t mean it’s not valuable, right? To provide health coverage to somebody who’s 75 or 80, but unfortunately we have not found the everlasting secret to life yet.
So, but I think for economists who want to be able to show this sort of, as they show in this paper, this “quality-adjusted life year” benefit, this provides some really good evidence of what that expansion of Medicaid — which is a lot of what’s being rolled back, potentially, under the reconciliation process — did, which is, helps younger people be healthier and thus, right, hopefully, ideally, live a higher quality of life, and where you need less health coverage over time, and cost the government less.
It’s quite interesting, for people who want to go look at the graph The New York Times put in their story, of just where Medicaid fits, in terms of other sort of interventions we spend a lot of money on to help save lives. Because I was kind of surprised, given how much health insurance does cover, that it comes out on sort of the lower end, as being a pretty good bargain.
Rovner: Yeah. Well, we don’t have time to get into everything that’s in this bill, and there is a lot. It also includes a full ban of Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care for both minors and adults. And it cuts reimbursement to states that use their own funds to provide coverage to undocumented people. Is this a twofer for Republicans, saving money while fighting the culture wars?
Edney: Certainly. And I was surprised to see some very liberal states on the immigration front saying: We just have to deal with this. And this really sucks, but we have to balance our budget. And if we’re not going to get those tax dollars, then we aren’t going to be able to offer health insurance to people who are undocumented, or Medicaid to people who are undocumented.
Rovner: Yeah, California, most notably.
Edney: Yeah, California for sure. And they found a way to do it, hit them in the pocketbook, and that that’s a way for them to win the culture war, for sure.
Rovner: Alice, you’ve spent a lot of time looking at gender-affirming care. Were you surprised to see it banned for adults, too? Obviously the gender-affirming care for minors has been a continuing issue for a while.
Ollstein: Yeah, I would say not surprised, because this is sort of a common pattern that we see across different things, including in the abortion space, where first policies are targeted just at minors. That often is more politically palatable. And then it gets expanded to the general population. And so I think, given the wave of state bans on care for minors that we’ve seen, I think a lot of people had been projecting that this was the trajectory.
I think that there’s been some really good reporting from The 19th and other outlets about what an impact this would have. Trans people are disproportionately low-income and dependent on Medicaid, and so this would have really sweeping impacts on a lot of people.
Rovner: Well, turning to the Affordable Care Act, if you thought Republicans weren’t going to try to repeal the health law this time around, you thought wrong. There are a bucket of provisions in this bill that will make the Affordable Care Act coverage both more expensive and harder to get, so much that some analysts think it could reduce enrollment by as much as half of the 24 million people who have it now. Hasn’t someone told Republicans that many of these people are their voters?
Edney: Yeah, that’s a good question. I don’t know what the Republican strategists are telling them. But certainly they needed to save money. And so they found their loopholes and their different things that they thought they could scrape from. And maybe no one will notice? But I don’t think that’s going to happen.
A lot of people suddenly have much higher ACA premiums because of the way they’re going to take away this ability that the insurers have had to silver-load, essentially, the way that they deal with the premium tax credits by setting some of the savings, kind of the cost sharing that they need to do, right into the silver plan, because the silver plan is where the premiums are set off of. And so they were able to offer the plans with lower premiums, essentially, but still get paid for cost-sharing reductions. So they were able to still get that money taken away from them.
Rovner: So let me see if I can do it. It was, and this was something that Trump tried to do in 2017, that he thought was going to hurt the marketplace plans. And it ended up doing the opposite—
Edney: Right.
Rovner: —because it basically shifted money from the insurance companies and the beneficiaries back to the federal government, because it made the premium subsidies bigger.
So I think the point I want to make is that we’ve been talking all year about these extra subsidies that are going to expire, and that will make premiums go up, and the Republicans did not move to extend those subsidies. But this going back to the government paying these cost-sharing reduction payments is going to basically reverse the accidental lowering of premiums that Trump did in 2017. And therefore, raise them again.
So now we have a double whammy. We have premiums going up because the extra subsidies expire, and then we’ll have premiums going up even more because they’re going back to this original cost-sharing reduction. And yet, as we have said many times, a lot of these additional people who are now on the Affordable Care Act are people in the very red states that didn’t expand Medicaid. These are Republican voters.
Karlin-Smith: We haven’t talked a lot about the process of how they got this bill through this week. It was incredibly fast and done literally in the dead of night.
Ollstein: Multiple nights.
Karlin-Smith: So you have to wonder, particularly, if you think back to the last time Republicans tried to overturn Obamacare — and they did come pretty close — eventually, I think, that unpalatableness of taking away health care from so many of their own constituents came back to really hurt them. And you do have to wonder if the jamming was in part to make more people unaware of what was happening. You’d still think there’d be political repercussions later down the line when they realize it. But I think, especially, again, just thinking back on all the years when Republicans were saying Democrats were pushing the ACA through too fast and nobody could read the bill, or their CBO scores. This was a much, much faster version of that, with a lot less debate and public transparency and so forth.
Rovner: Yeah, they went to the Rules Committee at 1 a.m. Wednesday, so Tuesday night. The Rules Committee went until almost 9 o’clock the next evening, just consecutively. And shout out to Rules Committee chairman Virginia Foxx, who sat there for, I think, the entire time. And then they went straight from rules to the floor.
So it’s now Wednesday night at 10 o’clock at night, and then went all the way through and voted, I think, just before 7 a.m. I’ve done a lot of all-nighters in the Capitol. I haven’t seen one that was two nights in a row like this. And I have great admiration for the people who really were up for 48 hours to push this thing through.
Well, finally, let’s remember President Trump’s vow not to touch Medicare. Well, Medicare gets touched in this bill, too. In addition to restricting eligibility for some legal immigrants who are able to get coverage now, and making it harder for some low-income Medicare beneficiaries to get extra financial help, mostly through Medicaid, the bill as a whole is also likely to trigger a 4% Medicare sequester. Because, even all those other health cuts and food stamp cuts and other cuts don’t pay for all the huge tax breaks in the bill. Alice, you pointed that out. Is there any suggestion that this part might give people some pause, maybe when it gets to the Senate?
Edney: I’ve heard the Senate mostly seem upset about Medicaid. And I also feel like this idea that sequestration is coming back up into our consciousness is a little bit new. Like you said, it was pushed through and it was like, Oh, wait, this is enough to trigger sequestration. I think it certainly could become a talking point, because Trump said he would not cut Medicare. I don’t think, if senators are worried about Medicaid — and I think maybe some of us were a little surprised that that is coming from some red-state senators. Medicare is a whole different thing, and in the sense of being even more wildly popular with a lot of members of Congress.
Rovner: Yeah, I think this whole thing hasn’t, you’re right, sort of seeped into the general consciousness yet. Alice, did you want to say something?
Ollstein: Yeah, so a couple things, a couple patterns we’ve seen. So one, there are a lot of lawmakers on the right who have been discrediting the CBO, even in advance of estimates coming out, basically disparaging their methodology and trying to convince the public that it’s not accurate. And so I think that’s both around the deficit projections as well as how many people would be uninsured under different policies. So that’s been one reaction to this.
We’ve seen a pattern over many administrations where certain politicians are very concerned about things adding to the deficit when the opposition party is in power. And suddenly those concerns evaporate when their own party is in power and they don’t mind running up the deficit if it’s to advance policies that they want to advance. And so I think, yes, this could bother some fiscal hawks, and we saw that in the House, but I think, also, these other factors are at play.
Rovner: Yeah, I think this has a long way to go. There’s still a lot that people, I think you’re right, have not quite realized is in there. And we will get to more of it in coming weeks, because this has a long process in the Senate.
All right, well, segueing to abortion, the One Big Beautiful Bill also includes a couple of pretty significant abortion provisions. One would effectively ban abortion and marketplace plans for people with lower incomes. Affordable Care Act plans are not currently a big source of insurance coverage for abortion. Many states already ban abortion from coverage in these plans. But this would disrupt one of the big compromises that ultimately got the ACA passed in 2010.
The other provision would evict Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program, even though federal Medicaid funds don’t and never have been used for abortions. Many, many Medicaid patients use Planned Parenthood for routine medical care, including contraception and cancer screenings, and that is covered by Medicaid.
But while I see lots of anti-abortion groups taking victory laps over this, when the House passed a similar provision in 2017 as part of its repeal bill, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that it could not go in a budget reconciliation bill, because its purpose was not, quote, “primarily budgetary.” So is this all for show? Or is there a belief that something different might happen this time?
Ollstein: Well, I think there is more interest in ignoring or overruling the parliamentarian among Senate Republicans than there has been in the past. We’re seeing that now on an unrelated environmental issue. And so that could signal that they’re willing to do it more in the future. Of course, things like that cut both ways, and that raises the idea that the Democrats could also do that the next time they’re in power.
Rovner: And we should say, that if you overrule the parliamentarian in reconciliation — it’s a she right now — when she says it can’t go in reconciliation, that is equivalent to getting rid of the filibuster.
Ollstein: Correct.
Rovner: So I mean, that’s why both parties say, We want to keep the filibuster. But the moment you say, Hey, parliamentarian, we disagree with you and we’re just going to ignore that, that has ramifications way beyond budget reconciliation legislation.
Ollstein: That’s right. And so that’s been a line that a lot of senators have not been willing to cross, but I think you’re seeing more willingness than before. So that’s definitely something to watch on that. But I think, in terms of abortion, I think this is a real expansion of trends that were already underway, in ever-expanding the concept of what federal dollars going to abortion means. And it’s now in this very indirect way, where it’s reaching into the private insurance market, and it’s using federal funding as a cudgel to prevent groups like Planned Parenthood, and then also these private plans, from using other non-federal money to support abortions. And so it’s a real expansion beyond just you can’t use federal money to pay directly for abortions.
Rovner: Well, meanwhile, two other reproductive-associated health stories worth mentioning. In California, a fertility clinic got bombed. The bomber apparently died in the explosion, but this is the first time I can remember a purposeful bombing to a health center that was not an abortion clinic. How significant is it to the debate, that we’re now seeing fertility clinics bombed as well? And what do we know, if anything, about why the bomber went after a fertility clinic?
Karlin-Smith: There has been, obviously, some pressure on the right, I think, to go after fertility processes, and IVF [in vitro fertilization], and lump that in with abortion. Although, I think Trump and others have pushed back a bit on that, realizing how common and popular some of these fertility treatments are. And also it conflicts, I think, to some extent with their desire to grow the American population.
The motives of this particular person don’t seem aligned with, I guess, the anti-abortion movement. He sort of seems more anti-natalist movement and stuff. So from that perspective, I didn’t see it as being aligned with kind of a bigger, more common political debate we’ve had recently, which is, again, does the Republican Party want to expand the anti-abortion debate even further into fertility treatments and stuff.
Rovner: I was going to say, it certainly has drawn fertility clinics into the abortion debate, even if neither side in the abortion debate would presumably have an interest in blowing up a fertility clinic. But it is now sort of, I guess, in the general consciousness of antisocial people, if you will, that’s out there.
The other story in the news this week is about a woman named Adriana Smith, a nurse and mother from Georgia who was nine weeks pregnant in February when she was declared brain-dead after a medical emergency. Smith has been kept alive on life support ever since, not because her family wants that but because her medical team at Emory University Hospital is worried about running afoul of Georgia’s abortion ban, which prohibits terminations after cardiac activity can be detected. Even if the mother is clinically dead? I feel like this case could have really ominous repercussions at some point.
Ollstein: Well, I just want to point out that, yes, the state’s abortion ban is playing a role here, but this was happening while Roe v. Wade was still in place. There were cases like this. Some of it has to do with legislation around advanced directives and pregnancy. So I will point out that this is not solely a post-Dobbs phenomenon.
Rovner: Yeah, I think it also bears watching. Well, there was lots of vaccine news this week — I’m so glad we have Anna and Sarah here — with both the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] and FDA [Food and Drug Administration] declaring an end to recommending covid vaccines for what seems to be most of the population. Sarah, what did they do? And what does this mean?
Karlin-Smith: So the new director of FDA’s biologics center and the FDA commissioner released a framework for approving covid shots moving forward. And basically they are saying that, because covid, the virus, shifts, and we want to try and update our vaccines at least yearly, usually, to keep up with the changing viruses, but we want to do that in a reasonable time so that by the time when you update the vaccine it’s actually available within that time — right? — FDA has allowed companies to do studies that don’t require full clinical trials anymore, because we sort of have already done those trials. We know these vaccines are safe and effective. We’re making minor tweaks to them, and they do immunogenicity studies, which are studies that basically show they mount the proper immune response. And then they approve them.
FDA is now, seems to be, saying, We’re only going to allow those studies to approve new covid vaccine updates for people who are over 65, or under 65 and have health conditions, because they are saying, in their mind, the risk-benefit balance of offering these shots doesn’t necessarily pan out favorably for younger, healthier populations, and we should do clinical trials.
It’s not entirely clear yet, despite them rolling out a framework, how this will actually play out. Can they relabel shots already approved? Will this only impact once companies do need to do a strain change next as the virus adapts? Did they go about doing this in a sort of legal manner? It came out through a journal kind of editorial commentary piece, not through the Federal Register or formal guidance. There’s been no notice of comment.
So there’s a lot of questions to remain as to how this will be implemented, which products it would affect, and when. But there is a lot of concern that there may be reduced access to the products moving forward.
Rovner: That’s because the vaccine makers aren’t going to — it’s not probably worth it financially to them — to remount all these studies. Right?
Karlin-Smith: First off, a lot of people I’ve talked to, and this came up yesterday at a meeting FDA had, don’t believe it’s actually ethical to do some of the studies FDA is now calling for. Even though the benefits, particularly when you’re talking about boosting people who already had a primary vaccination series for covid, or some covid, is not the same as the benefits of getting an original covid vaccine series.
There still are benefits, and there still are benefits for pretty much everybody that outweigh the risks. On average, these are extremely safe shots. We know a lot about their safety, and the balance is positive. So people are saying, once that exists, you cannot ethically test it on placebo. Even as [FDA Commissioner Marty] Makary says, Well, so many Americans are declining to take the shot, so let’s test it and see. A lot of ethicists would say it’s actually, even if people are willing to do something that may not be ideal for their health, that doesn’t mean it’s ethical to test it in a trial.
So, I think there’s questions about, just, ethics, but also, right, whether companies would want to invest the time and money it would take to achieve and try to do them under this situation. So that is a big elephant in the room here. And I think some people feel like this is just sort of a push by Makary and his new CBER [Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research] director, essentially, to cut off vaccine access in a little bit of a sneaky way.
Rovner: Well, I did see, also this week, was I think it was Moderna, that was going to make a combination flu covid vaccine, has decided not to. I assume that’s related to all of this?
Karlin-Smith: Right. So Moderna had a, what people call a next-generation vaccine, which is supposed to be an improved update over the original shot, which is a bigger deal than just making a strain change. They actually think they provide a better response to protecting against the virus. And then they also added flu vaccine into it to sort of make it easier for people to get protected from both, and also provided solid data to show it would work well for flu.
And they seem to have probably pulled their application at this point over, again, these new concerns, and what we know Novavax went through in trying to get their covid vaccine across the finish line dealing with this new administration. So I think people have their sort of alert lights up going forward as to how this administration is going to handle vaccine approvals and what that will mean for access going forward.
Rovner: Well, in somewhat related news, we got the long-awaited report from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again Commission, which is supposed to lay out a blueprint for an action plan that will come later this summer. Not much in the 68-page report seems all that surprising. Some is fairly noncontroversial, calling for more study of ultra-processed foods and less screen time and more physical activity for kids.
And some is controversial but at this point kind of predictable, calling for another look at the childhood vaccine schedule, including, as we just discussed, more placebo studies for vaccines, and also less fluoride available, except in toothpaste. Anything jump out at you guys from the report that we should keep an eye on?
Karlin-Smith: I think one thing to think about is what it doesn’t address and doesn’t talk about. It’s not surprising the issues they call out for harming health in America, and some of them are debatable as to how much they do or don’t harm health, or whether their solutions would actually address those problems.
But they never talk about the U.S.’ lack of a health insurance system that assures people have coverage. They don’t mention the Republican Party’s and likely president’s willingness to sign onto a major bill that’s going to impact health. They don’t really talk about the socioeconomic drivers that impact health, which I find particularly interesting when they talk about food, because, obviously, the U.S. has a lot of healthy and unhealthy food available. And a lot of people know sort of how they could make better choices, but there are these situational factors outside of, often, an individual’s control to lead to that.
And I think the other thing that jumped out to me is, I think The Washington Post had a good line in their paragraph about just how many of the points are either overstated or misstated scientific findings. And they did a pretty good job of going through some of those. And it’s a difficult situation, I think, for the public to grapple with when you have leadership and the top echelons of our health department that is pushing so much misinformation, often very carefully, and having to weed out what is correct, where is the grains of truth, where does it go off into misinformation.
I don’t know. I find it really hard as a journalist. And so I do worry about, again, how this all plays into public perception and misunderstanding of these topics.
Rovner: And apparently they forgot about gun violence in all of this, which is rather notably not there.
Ollstein: Cars and guns are the big killers. And yeah, no mention of that.
Edney: I thought another glaring omission was tobacco. Kids are using e-cigarettes at high rates. We don’t really know much about them. And to Sarah’s point about misinformation, too, I think the hard part of being able to discern a lot of this, even as a member of the public, is everything they’ve done so far is only rhetoric. There hasn’t been actual regulation, or — this could be anything that you’re talking about. It could be food dyes. It could be “most favored nations.” We don’t know what they actually want to implement and what the potential for doing so — I think maybe on vaccines we’re seeing the most action. But as Sarah mentioned, we don’t know how that, whether it legally is going to be something that they can continue doing.
So even with this report, it was highly anticipated, but I don’t think we got anything beyond what I probably heard Kennedy say over and over throughout the campaign and in his bid for health secretary. So I am wondering when they actually decide to move into the policymaking part of it, instead of just telling us they’re going to do something.
Rovner: And interestingly, Secretary Kennedy was interviewed on CNN last night and walked back some of the timelines, even, including that vow that they were going to know the cause of autism by September and that they were going to have an action plan for this ready in another, I think, a hundred days. So this is going to be a hurry-up-and-wait.
All right, well, that is as much news as we have time for in this incredibly busy week. Now we will play my interview with law professor and abortion historian Mary Ziegler, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.
I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast Mary Ziegler, the Martin Luther King Jr. professor of law at the University of California-Davis. She’s also a historian of the abortion movement. And her newest book, just out, is called “Personhood: The New Civil War Over Reproduction.”
Mary Ziegler, thanks for joining us again.
Mary Ziegler: Thanks for having me.
Rovner: So we’ve talked about personhood a lot on our podcast, including with you, but it means different things to different people. What’s your working definition, at least for the purpose of this book?
Ziegler: Yeah, I’m interested in this book in the legal fight for personhood, right? Some people have religious ideas of personhood. Bioethicists have ideas of personhood. Philosophers debate personhood. But I’m really interested in the legal claim that the word “person” in the 14th Amendment, which gives us liberty and equality, applies the moment an egg is fertilized. Because it’s that legal claim that’s had a lot of knock-on effects with abortion, with IVF, and potentially even beyond.
Rovner: So if we as a society were to accept that fetuses or embryos or zygotes were people with full constitutional rights at the moment of creation, that can impact things way beyond abortion, right?
Ziegler: Definitely, yeah, especially if you make the moves that the anti-abortion movement, or the pro-life movement, in the United States has made, right? So one of the other things that’s probably worth saying is, if you believe the claim I laid out about fetal personhood, that doesn’t mean you necessarily think abortion should be criminalized or that IVF should be criminalized, either.
But the people who are leading the anti-abortion movement do, in large part, right? So it would have ramifications in lots of other contexts, because there’s a conclusion not only that human life begins at fertilization and that constitutional rights begin at fertilization but that the way you honor those constitutional rights is primarily by restricting or criminalizing certain things that threaten that life, in the views of the people who advocate for it.
Rovner: Right. And that includes IVF and forms of contraception. That’s where we sort of get to this idea that an abortion is murder or that, in this case, doing anything that harms even a zygote is murder.
Ziegler: Yeah. And it gets us to the Adriana Smith case in Georgia, too. So there’s sort of end-of-life cases that emerge. So, it obviously would have a big impact on abortion. So it’s not wrong to think about abortion in this context. It’s just that would definitely not be the stopping point.
Rovner: So, many people have only talked about personhood, really, since the Supreme Court overturned Roe in 2022, but the concept is a lot older than that. I started covering personhood in like 2010, I think, when a couple of states were trying to vote on it. I didn’t realize until I read your book that it goes back well beyond even that.
Ziegler: Yeah. So I think a lot of people had that conception. And in the 2010s, there were state constitutional amendment efforts to write the idea of fetal personhood into state constitutions. And they all failed. So I think the narrative coming out of that was that you had the anti-abortion movement on the one hand, and then you had this more extreme fetal personhood movement on the other hand.
And that narrative fundamentally is wrong. There is no one in the anti-abortion movement who’s opposed to fetal personhood. There are disagreements about how and when it can be recognized. There’s strategic disagreements. There are no substantive disagreements much to speak of on the basics of fetal personhood.
So the idea goes all the way back to the 1960s, when states were first reforming the 19th-century criminal laws you sometimes see coming back to life as zombie laws. And initially it started as a strategic necessity, because it was very hard for the early anti-abortion movement to stop this reform wave, right? They were saying things like, Oh, abortion is going to lead to more sexual promiscuity, or, No one really needs abortion, because pregnancy is no longer dangerous. And that just wasn’t getting the job done.
So they began to argue that no one had a choice to legalize abortion in worse circumstances, because it would violate the rights of the unborn child. What’s interesting is that argument went from being this kind of strategic expedient to being this tremendously emotionally resonant long-term thing that has lived on the American right for now like a half-century. Even in moments when, I think arguably like right now, when it’s not politically smart to be making the argument, people will continue to, because this speaks to something, I think, for a lot of people who are opposed to abortion and other things like IVF.
Rovner: I know you’ve got access in writing this book to a lot of internal documents from people in the anti-abortion movement. I’m jealous, I have to say. Was there something there that surprised you?
Ziegler: Yeah, I think I was somewhat surprised by how much people talked this language of personhood when they were alone, right? This was not just something for the consumption of judges, or the consumption of politicians, or sort of like a nicer way to talk about what people really wanted. This was what people said when there was no one else there.
That didn’t mean they didn’t say other things that suggested that there were lots of other values and beliefs underlying this concept of personhood. But I think one of the important lessons of that is if you’re trying to understand people who are opposed to abortion, just assuming that everything they’re saying is just pure strategy is not helpful, right? Any more than it would be for people who support reproductive rights, to have it assume that everything they’re saying is not genuine. You just fail to understand what people are doing, I think. And I think that was probably what I was the most surprised about.
Rovner: I was struck that you point out that personhood doesn’t have to begin and end with the criminalization of abortion. How could more acceptance of the rights of the unborn change society in perhaps less polarized ways?
Ziegler: Yeah, one of the things that’s really striking is that there are other countries that recognize a right to life for a fetus or unborn child that don’t criminalize abortion or don’t enforce criminal abortion laws. And often what they say is that it’s not OK for the state to start with criminalization when it isn’t doing things to support pregnant women, who after all are necessary for a fetus or unborn child to survive, right?
So there are strategies that you could use to reduce infant mortality, for example, to reduce neonatal mortality, to reduce miscarriage and stillbirth, to improve maternal health, to really eliminate some of the reasons that people who may want, all things being equal, to carry a child to term. That’s not, obviously, going to be everybody. Some people don’t want to be parents at all.
But there are other people for whom it’s a matter of resources, or it’s a matter of overcoming racial discrimination, or it’s a matter of leaving an abusive relationship. And if governments were more committed to doing some of those things, it’s reasonable to assume that a subset of those people would carry pregnancies to term, right?
So there are lots of ways that if a state were serious about honoring fetal life, that it could. I think one of the other things that’s striking that I realized in writing the book is that that tracks with what a subset of Americans think. You’ll find these artifacts in polls where you’ll get something like 33% of people in Pew Forum’s 2022 poll saying they thought that life and rights began at conception, but also that abortion shouldn’t be criminalized.
So there are a subset of Americans who, whether they’re coming from a place of faith or otherwise, can hold those two beliefs at once. So I think an interesting question is, could we have a politics that accommodates that kind of belief? And at the moment the answer is probably not, but it’s interesting to imagine how that could change.
Rovner: It’s nice to know that there is a place that we can hope to get.
Ziegler: Yeah, exactly.
Rovner: Mary Ziegler, thank you so much for joining us again.
Ziegler: Thanks for having me.
Rovner: OK, we’re back. And now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile devices. Sarah, you chose first this week. You go first.
Karlin-Smith: I purposely chose a sort of light story from Australia, where scientists studied remote work, and the headline is “[Scientists Have Been Studying Remote Work for Four Years and Have] Reached a Very Clear Conclusion: ‘Working From Home Makes Us Happier.’” And it just goes through some of the benefits and perks people have found from working remotely, including more sleep, more time with friends and family, things like that. And it just felt like a nice, interesting read in a time where there’s a lot of heavy health news.
Rovner: Also, scientific evidence of things that I think we all could have predicted. Anna.
Edney: Apologies for going the other direction here, but it’s a story that I wrote this week, an investigation that I’ve been working on for a long time, “The Potential Cancer, Health Risks Lurking in One Popular OTC Drug.” So this is one, in particularly a lot of women have used. You can go in any CVS, Target, Walmart, stores like that, and buy it. Called Azo, for urinary tract infections. And all these stores sell their own generic versions as well, under phenazopyridine.
And this drug, I was kind of shocked to learn, is not FDA-approved. There are prescription versions that are not FDA-approved, either. It’s just been around so long that it’s been grandfathered in. And that may not be a big deal, except that this one, the FDA has raised questions about whether it causes cancer and whether it needs a stronger cancer warning, because the National Cancer Institute found in 1978 that it causes tumors in rats and mice. But no other work has been done on this drug, because it hasn’t been approved. So no one’s looked at it in humans. And it masks issues that really need antibiotics and causes a host of other issues.
There were — University of Virginia toxicologists told me they found, in the last 20 years, at least 200 suspected teen suicides where they used this drug, because of how dangerous this drug can be in any higher amounts than what’s on the box. So I went through this drug, but there are other ones on the market as well that are not approved. And there’s this whole FDA system that has allowed the OTC [over-the-counter] market to be pretty lax.
Rovner: OK, that’s terrifying. But thank you for your work. Alice.
Ollstein: Speaking of terrifying, I chose a piece from NPR called, “Diseases Are Spreading. The CDC Isn’t Warning the Public Like It Was Months Ago.” And this is a look at all of the ways our public health agency that is supposed to be letting us know when outbreaks are happening, and where, and how to protect ourselves, they’ve gone dark. They are not posting on social media. They are not sending out alerts. They are not sending out newsletters. And it walks through the danger of all of that happening, with interviews with people who are still on the inside and on the outside experiencing the repercussions.
Rovner: Well, my extra credit, it helps explain why Alice’s extra credit, because it’s about all the people who were doing that who have been fired or laid off from the federal government. It’s called, “White House Officials Wanted To Put Federal Workers ‘in Trauma.’ It’s Working,” by William Wan and Hannah Natanson.
And it’s the result of interviews with more than 30 current and former federal workers, along with the families of some who died or killed themselves. And it’s a review of documents to confirm those stories. It’s a super-depressing but beautifully told piece about the dramatic mental health impact of the federal DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] layoffs and firings, and the impact that that’s been having on these workers, their families, and their communities.
OK, that is 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 to our fill-in editor this week, Rebecca Adams, and our producer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you guys hanging these days? Anna?
Edney: Both of those [X and Bluesky], @annaedney.
Rovner: Sarah.
Karlin-Smith: Everywhere — X, Bluesky, LinkedIn, @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith.
Rovner: Alice.
Ollstein: @AliceOllstein on X and @alicemiranda on Bluesky.
Rovner: I am off to California next week, where we’ll be taping the podcast at the annual meeting of the Association for Health Care Journalists, which we won’t post until the following Monday. So everyone please have a great Memorial Day holiday week. And until then, be healthy.
Credits
Francis Ying
Audio producer
Rebecca Adams
Editor
To hear all our podcasts, click here.
And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
USE OUR CONTENT
This story can be republished for free (details).
2 months 1 week ago
california, COVID-19, Health Care Costs, Insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, Multimedia, Public Health, States, The Health Law, Abortion, Children's Health, FDA, HHS, KFF Health News' 'What The Health?', Medicaid Expansion, Misinformation, Nutrition, Podcasts, Pregnancy, Premiums, reproductive health, Subsidies, Transgender Health, U.S. Congress, vaccines, Women's Health
Republicanos buscan castigar a estados que ofrecen seguro de salud a inmigrantes sin papeles
La emblemática legislación del presupuesto del presidente Donald Trump castigaría a 14 estados que ofrecen cobertura de salud a personas que viven en el país sin papeles.
Estos estados, la mayoría liderados por demócratas, dan seguro médico a algunos inmigrantes de bajos ingresos —a menudo niños—, independientemente de su estatus migratorio. Defensores argumentan que la política es humanitaria y que, en última instancia, ahorra costos.
Sin embargo, la legislación federal, que los republicanos han denominado One Big Beautiful Bill (Un hermoso gran proyecto de ley), recortaría drásticamente los reembolsos federales de Medicaid a esos estados en miles de millones de dólares anuales en total, a menos que reduzcan esos beneficios.
El proyecto de ley fue aprobado por un estrecho margen en la Cámara de Representantes el jueves 22 de mayo, y ahora pasa al Senado.
Si bien avanza gran parte de la agenda nacional de Trump, incluyendo grandes recortes de impuestos que benefician principalmente a los estadounidenses más ricos, la legislación también realiza recortes sustanciales del gasto en Medicaid que, según los responsables del presupuesto del Congreso, dejará a millones de personas de bajos ingresos sin seguro médico.
De ser aprobados por el Senado, estos recortes representarían un complejo obstáculo político y económico para los estados y Washington, DC, que utilizan sus propios fondos para brindar seguro médico a algunas personas que viven en Estados Unidos sin autorización.
Estos estados verían reducidos en 10 puntos porcentuales los reembolsos federales para las personas cubiertas por la expansión de Medicaid que se realize bajo la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA).
Estos recortes le costarían a California, el estado que más tiene que perder, hasta $3 mil millones al año, según un análisis de KFF, una organización sin fines de lucro dedicada a información de salud que incluye a KFF Health News.
En conjunto, los 15 lugares afectados (los 14 estados y DC) cubren a aproximadamente 1.9 millones de inmigrantes sin papeles, según KFF. La entidad indica que la sanción también podría aplicarse a otros estados que cubren a inmigrantes con residencia legal.
Dos de los estados, Illinois y Utah, tienen leyes de “activación” que exigen terminar con sus expansiones de Medicaid si el gobierno federal reduce su aporte de fondos. Esto significa que, a menos que esos estados deroguen sus leyes de activación o dejen de cubrir a las personas sin estatus migratorio legal, muchos más estadounidenses de bajos ingresos podrían quedarse sin seguro.
Si continúan cubriendo a personas sin papeles, a partir del año fiscal 2027, los estados restantes y Washington, DC, tendrían que aportar millones o miles de millones de dólares adicionales cada año, para compensar las reducciones en sus reembolsos federales de Medicaid.
Después de California, Nueva York podría perder la mayor parte de la financiación federal: cerca de 1.600 millones de dólares anuales, según KFF.
El senador estatal de California, Scott Wiener, demócrata y presidente del Comité de Presupuesto del Senado, afirmó que la legislación de Trump ha sembrado el caos mientras los legisladores estatales trabajan para aprobar su propio presupuesto antes del 15 de junio.
“Tenemos que mantenernos firmes”, declaró. “California ha decidido que queremos una atención médica universal y que vamos a garantizar que todos tengan acceso a la atención médica, y que no vamos a permitir que millones de personas indocumentadas reciban atención primaria en salas de emergencia”.
El gobernador de California, el demócrata Gavin Newsom, declaró en un comunicado que el proyecto de ley de Trump devastaría la atención médica en su estado.
“Millones de personas perderán cobertura, los hospitales cerrarán y las redes de seguridad social podrían colapsar bajo ese peso”, dijo Newsom.
En su propuesta de presupuesto del 14 de mayo, Newsom instó a los legisladores a recortar algunos beneficios para inmigrantes sin papeles, citando el aumento desmedido de los costos del programa estatal de Medicaid. Si el Congreso recorta los fondos para la expansión de Medicaid, el estado no estaría en condiciones de cubrir los gastos, afirmó el gobernador.
Newsom cuestionó si el Congreso tiene la autoridad para penalizar a los estados por cómo gastan su propio dinero, y afirmó que su estado consideraría impugnar la medida en los tribunales.
El representante estatal de Utah, Jim Dunnigan, republicano que ayudó a impulsar un proyecto de ley para cubrir a los niños en su estado independientemente de su estatus migratorio, afirmó que Utah necesita mantener la expansión de Medicaid que comenzó en 2020.
“No podemos permitirnos, ni monetaria ni políticamente, que se recorten nuestros fondos federales para la expansión”, declaró. Dunnigan no especificó si cree que el estado debería cancelar su cobertura para inmigrantes si la disposición republicana sobre sanciones se convierte en ley.
El programa de Utah cubre a unos 2.000 niños, el máximo permitido por su ley. Los inmigrantes adultos sin estatus legal no son elegibles. La expansión de Medicaid de Utah cubre a unos 75.000 adultos, quienes deben ser ciudadanos o inmigrantes con residencia legal.
Matt Slonaker, director ejecutivo del Utah Health Policy Project, una organización de defensa del consumidor, afirmó que el proyecto de ley de la Cámara federal deja al estado en una posición difícil.
“Políticamente, no hay grandes alternativas”, declaró. “Es el dilema del prisionero: cualquier movimiento en cualquier dirección no tiene mucho sentido”.
Slonaker apuntó que un escenario probable es que los legisladores estatales eliminen su ley de activación, y luego encuentren la manera de compensar la pérdida de fondos federales para la expansión.
Utah ha financiado su parte del costo de la expansión de Medicaid con impuestos sobre las ventas y los hospitales.
“El Congreso pondría al estado de Utah en posición de tener que tomar una decisión política muy difícil”, declaró Slonaker.
En Illinois, la sanción del Partido Republicano tendría incluso consecuencias más graves. Esto se debe a que podría llevar a que 770.000 adultos perdieran la cobertura médica que obtuvieron con la expansión estatal de Medicaid.
Stephanie Altman, directora de justicia sanitaria del Shriver Center on Poverty Law, un grupo de defensa con sede en Chicago, afirmó que es posible que su estado, liderado por demócratas, derogue su ley de activación antes de permitir que se dé por terminada la expansión de Medicaid.
Agregó que el estado también podría eludir la sanción solicitando a los condados que financien la cobertura para inmigrantes. “Obviamente, sería una situación difícil”, declaró.
Altman indicó que el proyecto de ley de la Cámara de Representantes parece redactado para penalizar a los estados controlados por demócratas, ya que estos suelen brindar cobertura a inmigrantes sin importar su estatus migratorio.
Agregó que la disposición demuestra la “hostilidad de los republicanos contra los inmigrantes” y que “no quieren que vengan aquí y reciban cobertura pública”.
Mike Johnson, el presidente de la Cámara de Representantes de Estados Unidos, declaró en mayo que los programas estatales que brindan cobertura pública a personas sin importar su estatus migratorio actúan como un “felpudo abierto”, invitando a más personas a cruzar la frontera sin autorización. Afirmó que los esfuerzos para eliminar estos programas cuentan con el apoyo de las encuestas públicas.
Una encuesta de Reuters-Ipsos realizada entre el 16 y el 18 de mayo reveló que el 47% de los estadounidenses aprueba las políticas migratorias de Trump y el 45% las desaprueba. La encuesta reveló que el índice de aprobación general de Trump ha caído 5 puntos porcentuales desde que regresó al cargo en enero, hasta el 42%, con un 52% de los estadounidenses desaprobando su gestión.
ACA, también conocida como Obamacare, impulsó a los estados a ampliar Medicaid a adultos con ingresos de hasta el 138% del nivel federal de pobreza, o $21.597 por persona este año. Cuarenta estados y Washington, DC, ampliaron su cobertura, lo que contribuyó a reducir la tasa nacional de personas sin seguro a un mínimo histórico.
El gobierno federal ahora cubre el 90% de los costos de las personas incluidas en Medicaid gracias a la ampliación del Obamacare.
En los estados que cubren la atención médica de inmigrantes sin autorización, el proyecto de ley republicano reduciría la contribución del gobierno federal del 90% al 80% del costo de la cobertura para cualquier persona que se incorpore a Medicaid bajo la expansión de ACA.
Por ley, los fondos federales de Medicaid no pueden utilizarse para cubrir a personas que se encuentran en el país papeles, excepto para servicios de embarazo y emergencias.
Los otros estados que utilizan sus propios fondos para cubrir a personas sin importar su estatus migratorio son: Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nueva Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont y Washington, según KFF.
Ryan Long, director de relaciones con el Congreso del Paragon Health Institute, un influyente grupo político conservador, afirmó que incluso si utilizan sus propios fondos para la cobertura de inmigrantes, los estados aún dependen de los fondos federales para “apoyar sistemas que faciliten la inscripción de inmigrantes indocumentados”.
Long afirmó que la preocupación por que los estados con leyes de activación puedan ver finalizada la expansión de Medicaid es una “pista falsa”, ya que los estados tienen la opción de eliminar sus activadores, como hizo Michigan en 2023.
La sanción por ofrecer cobrtura de salud a personas en el país sin papeles es una de las distintas maneras en que el proyecto de ley de la Cámara de Representantes recorta el gasto federal en Medicaid.
La legislación también trasladaría más costos de Medicaid a los estados al exigirles que verifiquen si los adultos cubiertos por el programa trabajan. Los estados también tendrían que recertificar la elegibilidad de los beneficiarios de la expansión de Medicaid cada seis meses, en lugar de una vez al año o menos, como lo hacen actualmente la mayoría.
El proyecto de ley también congelaría la práctica de los estados de gravar con impuestos a hospitales, residencias de adultos mayores, planes de atención médica administrada y otras compañías de atención médica para financiar su parte de los costos de Medicaid.
En una estimación preliminar del 11 de mayo, la Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso (CBO) indicó que, según el proyecto de ley aprobado por la Cámara de Representantes, alrededor de 8,6 millones de personas más perderían la cobertura médica en 2034.
Esa cifra aumentará a casi 14 millones, según la CBO, después que la administración Trump finalice las nuevas regulaciones de ACA y, si el Congreso, liderado por los republicanos, como se prevé, se niegue a extender los subsidios mejorados para ayudar a pagar las primas de los planes de salud comerciales vendidos a través de los mercados del Obamacare.
Los subsidios mejorados, una prioridad del ex presidente Joe Biden, eliminaron por completo las primas mensuales para algunas personas que adquirieran planes de Obamacare. Y expiran a fin de año.
Esta historia fue producida por Kaiser Health News, que publica California Healthline, un servicio editorialmente independiente de la California Health Care Foundation.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
USE OUR CONTENT
This story can be republished for free (details).
2 months 1 week ago
Health Care Costs, Insurance, Medi-Cal, Medicaid, Noticias En Español, Race and Health, States, The Health Law, Uninsured, california, District Of Columbia, Latinos, Legislation, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Utah, Washington
Republicans Aim To Punish States That Insure Unauthorized Immigrants
President Donald Trump’s signature budget legislation would punish 14 states that offer health coverage to people in the U.S. without authorization.
The states, most of them Democratic-led, provide insurance to some low-income immigrants — often children — regardless of their legal status. Advocates argue the policy is both humane and ultimately cost-saving.
President Donald Trump’s signature budget legislation would punish 14 states that offer health coverage to people in the U.S. without authorization.
The states, most of them Democratic-led, provide insurance to some low-income immigrants — often children — regardless of their legal status. Advocates argue the policy is both humane and ultimately cost-saving.
But the federal legislation, which Republicans have titled the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” would slash federal Medicaid reimbursements to those states by billions of dollars a year in total unless they roll back the benefits.
The bill narrowly passed the House on Thursday and next moves to the Senate. While enacting much of Trump’s domestic agenda, including big tax cuts largely benefiting wealthier Americans, the legislation also makes substantial spending cuts to Medicaid that congressional budget scorekeepers say will leave millions of low-income people without health insurance.
The cuts, if approved by the Senate, would pose a tricky political and economic hurdle for the states and Washington, D.C., which use their own funds to provide health insurance to some people in the U.S. without authorization.
Those states would see their federal reimbursement for people covered under the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion cut by 10 percentage points. The cuts would cost California, the state with the most to lose, as much as $3 billion a year, according to an analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.
Together, the 15 affected places cover about 1.9 million immigrants without legal status, according to KFF. The penalty might also apply to other states that cover lawfully residing immigrants, KFF says.
Two of the states — Utah and Illinois — have “trigger” laws that call for their Medicaid expansions to terminate if the feds reduce their funding match. That means unless those states either repeal their trigger laws or stop covering people without legal immigration status, many more low-income Americans could be left uninsured.
The remaining states and Washington, D.C., would have to come up with millions or billions more dollars every year, starting in the 2027 fiscal year, to make up for reductions in their federal Medicaid reimbursements, if they keep covering people in the U.S. without authorization.
Behind California, New York stands to lose the most federal funding — about $1.6 billion annually, according to KFF.
California state Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat who chairs the Senate budget committee, said Trump’s legislation has sown chaos as state legislators work to pass their own budget by June 15.
“We need to stand our ground,” he said. “California has made a decision that we want universal health care and that we are going to ensure that everyone has access to health care, and that we’re not going to have millions of undocumented people getting their primary care in emergency rooms.”
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement that Trump’s bill would devastate health care in his state.
“Millions will lose coverage, hospitals will close, and safety nets could collapse under the weight,” Newsom said.
In his May 14 budget proposal, Newsom called on lawmakers to cut some benefits for immigrants without legal status, citing ballooning costs in the state’s Medicaid program. If Congress cuts Medicaid expansion funding, the state would be in no position to backfill, the governor said.
Newsom questioned whether Congress has the authority to penalize states for how they spend their own money and said his state would consider challenging the move in court.
Utah state Rep. Jim Dunnigan, a Republican who helped spearhead a bill to cover children in his state regardless of their immigration status, said Utah needs to maintain its Medicaid expansion that began in 2020.
“We cannot afford, monetary-wise or policy-wise, to see our federal expansion funding cut,” he said. Dunnigan wouldn’t say whether he thinks the state should end its immigrant coverage if the Republican penalty provision becomes law.
Utah’s program covers about 2,000 children, the maximum allowed under its law. Adult immigrants without legal status are not eligible. Utah’s Medicaid expansion covers about 75,000 adults, who must be citizens or lawfully present immigrants.
Matt Slonaker, executive director of the Utah Health Policy Project, a consumer advocacy organization, said the federal House bill leaves the state in a difficult position.
“There are no great alternatives, politically,” he said. “It’s a prisoner’s dilemma — a move in either direction does not make much sense.”
Slonaker said one likely scenario is that state lawmakers eliminate their trigger law then find a way to make up the loss of federal expansion funding.
Utah has funded its share of the cost of Medicaid expansion with sales and hospital taxes.
“This is a very hard political decision that Congress would put the state of Utah in,” Slonaker said.
In Illinois, the GOP penalty would have even larger consequences. That’s because it could lead to 770,000 adults’ losing the health coverage they gained under the state’s Medicaid expansion.
Stephanie Altman, director of health care justice at the Shriver Center on Poverty Law, a Chicago-based advocacy group, said it’s possible her Democratic-led state would end its trigger law before allowing its Medicaid expansion to terminate. She said the state might also sidestep the penalty by asking counties to fund coverage for immigrants. “It would be a hard situation, obviously,” she said.
Altman said the House bill appeared written to penalize Democratic-controlled states because they more commonly provide immigrants coverage without regard for their legal status.
She said the provision shows Republicans’ “hostility against immigrants” and that “they do not want them coming here and receiving public coverage.”
U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson said this month that state programs that provide public coverage to people regardless of immigration status serve as “an open doormat,” inviting more people to cross the border without authorization. He said efforts to end such programs have support in public polling.
A Reuters-Ipsos poll conducted May 16-18 found that 47% of Americans approve of Trump’s immigration policies and 45% disapprove. The poll found that Trump’s overall approval rating has sunk 5 percentage points since he returned to office in January, to 42%, with 52% of Americans disapproving of his performance.
The Affordable Care Act, widely known as Obamacare, enabled states to expand Medicaid to adults with incomes of up to 138% of the federal poverty level, or $21,597 for an individual this year. Forty states and Washington, D.C., expanded, helping reduce the national uninsured rate to a historic low.
The federal government now pays 90% of the costs for people added to Medicaid under the Obamacare expansion.
In states that cover health care for immigrants in the U.S. without authorization, the Republican bill would reduce the federal government’s contribution from 90% to 80% of the cost of coverage for anyone added to Medicaid under the ACA expansion.
By law, federal Medicaid funds cannot be used to cover people who are in the country without authorization, except for pregnancy and emergency services.
The other states that use their own money to cover people regardless of immigration status are Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, according to KFF.
Ryan Long, director of congressional relations at Paragon Health Institute, an influential conservative policy group, said that even if they use their own money for immigrant coverage, states still depend on federal funds to “support systems that facilitate enrollment of illegal aliens.”
Long said the concern that states with trigger laws could see their Medicaid expansion end is a “red herring” because states have the option to remove their triggers, as Michigan did in 2023.
The penalty for covering people in the country without authorization is one of several ways the House bill cuts federal Medicaid spending.
The legislation would shift more Medicaid costs to states by requiring them to verify whether adults covered by the program are working. States would also have to recertify Medicaid expansion enrollees’ eligibility every six months, rather than once a year or less, as most states currently do.
The bill would also freeze states’ practice of taxing hospitals, nursing homes, managed-care plans, and other health care companies to fund their share of Medicaid costs.
The Congressional Budget Office said in a May 11 preliminary estimate that, under the House-passed bill, about 8.6 million more people would be without health insurance in 2034. That number will rise to nearly 14 million, the CBO estimates, after the Trump administration finishes new ACA regulations and if the Republican-led Congress, as expected, declines to extend enhanced premium subsidies for commercial insurance plans sold through Obamacare marketplaces.
The enhanced subsidies, a priority of former President Joe Biden, eliminated monthly premiums altogether for some people buying Obamacare plans. They are set to expire at the end of the year.
This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
USE OUR CONTENT
This story can be republished for free (details).
2 months 1 week ago
california, Health Care Costs, Insurance, Medicaid, States, Colorado, Connecticut, District Of Columbia, Illinois, Immigrants, Legislation, Maine, Massachusetts, Medicaid Watch, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, U.S. Congress, Utah, Vermont, Washington
Los hospitales que atienden partos en zonas rurales están cada vez más lejos de las embarazadas
WINNER, Dakota del Sur — Sophie Hofeldt tenía previsto hacerse los controles de embarazo y dar a luz en el hospital local, a 10 minutos de su casa. En cambio, ahora, para ir a la consulta médica, tiene que conducir más de tres horas entre ida y vuelta.
Es que el hospital donde se atendía, Winner Regional Health, se ha sumado recientemente al cada vez mayor número de centros de salud rurales que cierran sus unidades de maternidad.
“Ahora va a ser mucho más estresante y complicado para las mujeres recibir la atención médica que necesitan, porque tienen que ir mucho más lejos”, dijo Hofeldt, que tiene fecha de parto de su primer hijo el 10 de junio.
Hofeldt agregó que los viajes más largos suponen más gasto en gasolina y un mayor riesgo de no llegar a tiempo al hospital. “Mi principal preocupación es tener que parir en un auto”, afirma.
Más de un centenar de hospitales rurales han dejado de atender partos desde 2021, según el Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform, una organización sin fines de lucro. El cierre de los servicios de obstetricia se suele achacar a la falta de personal y la falta de presupuesto.
En la actualidad, alrededor del 58% de los condados de Dakota del Sur no cuentan con salas de parto. Es la segunda tasa más alta del país, después de Dakota del Norte, según March of Dimes, una organización que asiste a las madres y sus bebés.
Además, el Departamento de Salud de Dakota del Sur informó que las mujeres embarazadas y los bebés del estado — especialmente las afroamericanas y las nativas americanas— presentan tasas más altas de complicaciones y mortalidad.
Winner Regional Health atiende a comunidades rurales en Dakota del Sur y Nebraska, incluyendo parte de la reserva indígena Rosebud Sioux. El año pasado nacieron allí 107 bebés, una baja considerable respecto de los 158 que nacieron en 2021, contó su director ejecutivo, Brian Williams.
Los hospitales más cercanos con servicios de maternidad se encuentran en pueblos rurales a una hora de distancia, o más, de Winner.
Sin embargo, varias mujeres afirmaron que el trayecto en coche hasta esos centros las llevaría por zonas donde no hay señal de celular confiable, lo que podría suponer un problema si tuvieran una emergencia en el camino.
KFF Health News habló con cinco pacientes de la zona de Winner que tenían previsto que su parto fuera en el Avera St. Mary’s Hospital de Pierre, a unas 90 millas de Winner, o en uno de los grandes centros médicos de Sioux Falls, a 170 millas de distancia.
Hofeldt y su novio conducen cada tres semanas para ir a las citas prenatales en el hospital de Pierre, que brinda servicios a la pequeña capital y a la vasta zona rural circundante.
A medida que se acerque la fecha del parto, las citas de control y, por lo tanto los viajes, tendrán que ser semanales. Ninguno de los dos tiene un empleo que le brinde permiso con goce de sueldo para ese tipo de consulta médica.
“Cuando necesitamos ir a Pierre, tenemos que tomarnos casi todo el día libre”, explicó Hofeldt, que nació en el hospital de Winner.
Eso significa perder una parte del salario y gastar dinero extra en el viaje. Además, no todo el mundo tiene auto ni dinero para la gasolina, y los servicios de autobús son escasos en las zonas rurales del país.
Algunas mujeres también tienen que pagar el cuidado de sus otros hijos para poder ir al médico cuando el hospital está lejos. Y, cuando nace el bebé, tal vez tengan que asumir el costo de un hotel para los familiares.
Amy Lueking, la médica que atiende a Hofeldt en Pierre, dijo que cuando las pacientes no pueden superar estas barreras, los obstetras tienen la opción de darles dispositivos para monitorear el embarazo en el hogar y ofrecerles consulta por teléfono o videoconferencia.
Las pacientes también pueden hacerse los controles prenatales en un hospital o una clínica local y, más tarde, ponerse en contacto con un profesional de un hospital donde se practiquen partos, dijo Lueking.
Sin embargo, algunas zonas rurales no tienen acceso a la telesalud. Y algunas pacientes, como Hofeldt, no quieren dividir su atención, establecer relaciones con dos médicos y ocuparse de cuestiones logísticas como transferir historias clínicas.
Durante una cita reciente, Lueking deslizó un dispositivo de ultrasonido sobre el útero de Hofeldt. El ritmo de los latidos del corazón del feto resonó en el monitor.
“Creo que es el mejor sonido del mundo”, expresó Lueking.
Hofeldt le comentó que quería un parto lo más natural posible.
Pero lograr que el parto se desarrolle según lo planeado suele ser complicado para quienes viven en zonas rurales, lejos del hospital. Para estar seguras de que llegarán a tiempo, algunas mujeres optan por programar una inducción, un procedimiento en el que los médicos utilizan medicamentos u otras técnicas para provocar el trabajo de parto.
Katie Larson vive en un rancho cerca de Winner, en la localidad de Hamill, que tiene 14 habitantes. Esperaba evitar que le indujeran el parto.
Larson quería esperar a que las contracciones comenzaran de forma natural y luego conducir hasta el Avera St. Mary’s, en Pierre.
Pero terminó programando una inducción para el 13 de abril, su fecha probable de parto. Más tarde, la adelantó al 8 de abril para no perderse una venta de ganado muy importante, que ella y su esposo estaban preparando.
“La gente se verá obligada a elegir una fecha de inducción aunque no sea lo que en un principio hubiera elegido. Si no, correrá el riesgo de tener al bebé en la carretera”, afirmó.
Lueking aseguró que no es frecuente que las embarazadas den a luz mientras se dirigen al hospital en automóvil o en ambulancia. Pero también recordó que el año anterior cinco mujeres que tenían previsto tener a sus hijos en Pierre acabaron haciéndolo en las salas de emergencias de otros hospitales, porque el parto avanzó muy rápido o porque las condiciones del clima hicieron demasiado peligroso conducir largas distancias.
Nanette Eagle Star tenía previsto que su bebé naciera en el hospital de Winner, a cinco minutos de su casa, hasta que el hospital anunció que cerraría su unidad de maternidad. Entonces decidió dar a luz en Sioux Falls, porque su familia podía quedarse con unos familiares que vivían allí y así ahorrar dinero.
El plan de Eagle Star volvió a cambiar cuando comenzó el trabajo de parto prematuramente y el clima se puso demasiado peligroso para manejar o para tomar un helicóptero médico a Sioux Falls.
“Todo ocurrió muy rápido, en medio de una tormenta de nieve”, contó.
Finalmente, Eagle Star tuvo a su bebé en el hospital de Winner, pero en la sala de emergencias, sin epidural, ya que en ese momento no había ningún anestesista disponible. Esto ocurrió solo tres días después del cierre de la unidad de maternidad.
El fin de los servicios de parto y maternidad en el Winner Regional Health no es solo un problema de salud, según las mujeres de la localidad. También tiene repercusiones emocionales y económicas en la comunidad.
Eagle Star recuerda con cariño cuando era niña e iba con sus hermanas a las citas médicas. Apenas llegaban, iban a un pasillo que tenía fotos de bebés pegadas en la pared y comenzaban una “búsqueda del tesoro” para encontrar polaroids de ellas mismas y de sus familiares.
“A ambos lados del pasillo estaba lleno de fotos de bebés”, contó Eagle Star. Recuerda pensar: “Mira todos estos bebés tan lindos que han nacido aquí, en Winner”.
Hofeldt contó que muchos lugareños están tristes porque sus bebés no nacerán en el mismo hospital que ellos.
Anora Henderson, médica de familia, señaló que la falta de una correcta atención a las mujeres embarazadas puede tener consecuencias negativas para sus hijos. Esos bebés pueden desarrollar problemas de salud que requerirán cuidados de por vida, a menudo costosos, y otras ayudas públicas.
“Hay un efecto negativo en la comunidad”, dijo. “Simplemente no es tan visible y se notará bastante más adelante”.
Henderson renunció en mayo a su puesto en el Winner Regional Health, donde asistía partos vaginales y ayudaba en las cesáreas. El último bebé al que recibió fue el de Eagle Star.
Para que un centro de salud sea designado como hospital con servicio de maternidad, debe contar con instalaciones donde se pueden efectuar cesáreas y proporcionar anestesia las 24 horas del día, los 7 días de la semana, explicó Henderson.
Williams, el director ejecutivo del hospital, dijo que el Winner Regional Health no ha podido contratar suficientes profesionales médicos con formación en esas especializaciones.
En los últimos años, el hospital solo había podido ofrecer servicios de maternidad cubriendo aproximadamente $1,2 millones anuales en salarios de médicos contratados de forma temporal, señaló. Pero el hospital ya no podía seguir asumiendo ese gasto.
Otro reto financiero está dado porque muchos partos en los hospitales rurales están cubiertos por Medicaid, el programa federal y estatal que ofrece atención a personas con bajos ingresos o discapacidades.
El programa suele pagar aproximadamente la mitad de lo que pagan las aseguradoras privadas por los servicios de parto, según un informe de 2022 de la U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Williams contó que alrededor del 80% de los partos en Winner Regional Health estaban cubiertos por Medicaid.
Las unidades obstétricas suelen constituir el mayor gasto financiero de los hospitales rurales y, por lo tanto, son las primeras que se cierran cuando un centro de salud atraviesa dificultades económicas, explica el informe de la GAO.
Williams dijo que el hospital sigue prestando atención prenatal y que le encantaría reanudar los partos si pudiera contratar suficiente personal.
Henderson, la médica que dimitió del hospital de Winner, ha sido testigo del declive de la atención materna en las zonas rurales durante décadas.
Recuerda que, antes de que naciera su hermana, acompañaba a su madre a las citas médicas. En cada viaje, su madre recorría unas 100 millas después de que el hospital de la ciudad de Kadoka cerrara en 1979.
Henderson trabajó durante casi 22 años en el Winner Regional Health, lo que permitió que muchas mujeres no tuvieran que desplazarse para dar a luz, como le ocurrió a su madre.
A lo largo de los años, atendió a nuevas pacientes cuando cerraron las unidades de maternidad de un hospital rural cercano y luego las de un centro del Servicio de Salud Indígena. Finalmente, el propio hospital de Henderson dejó de atender partos.
“Lo que ahora realmente me frustra es que pensaba que iba a dedicarme a la medicina familiar y trabajar en una zona rural, y que así íbamos a solucionar estos problemas, para que las personas no tuvieran que conducir 100 millas para tener un bebé”, se lamentó.
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).
2 months 2 weeks ago
Health Care Costs, Health Industry, Medicaid, Noticias En Español, Rural Health, States, Hospitals, North Dakota, Pregnancy, South Dakota, Women's Health
KFF Health News' 'What the Health?': Cutting Medicaid Is Hard — Even for the GOP
The Host
Julie Rovner
KFF Health News
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.
After narrowly passing a budget resolution this spring foreshadowing major Medicaid cuts, Republicans in Congress are having trouble agreeing on specific ways to save billions of dollars from a pool of funding that pays for the program without cutting benefits on which millions of Americans rely. Moderates resist changes they say would harm their constituents, while fiscal conservatives say they won’t vote for smaller cuts than those called for in the budget resolution. The fate of President Donald Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill” containing renewed tax cuts and boosted immigration enforcement could hang on a Medicaid deal.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration surprised those on both sides of the abortion debate by agreeing with the Biden administration that a Texas case challenging the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone should be dropped. It’s clear the administration’s request is purely technical, though, and has no bearing on whether officials plan to protect the abortion pill’s availability.
This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Maya Goldman of Axios, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.
Panelists
Anna Edney
Bloomberg News
Maya Goldman
Axios
Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call
Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:
- Congressional Republicans are making halting progress on negotiations over government spending cuts. As hard-line House conservatives push for deeper cuts to the Medicaid program, their GOP colleagues representing districts that heavily depend on Medicaid coverage are pushing back. House Republican leaders are eying a Memorial Day deadline, and key committees are scheduled to review the legislation next week — but first, Republicans need to agree on what that legislation says.
- Trump withdrew his nomination of Janette Nesheiwat for U.S. surgeon general amid accusations she misrepresented her academic credentials and criticism from the far right. In her place, he nominated Casey Means, a physician who is an ally of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s and a prominent advocate of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement.
- The pharmaceutical industry is on alert as Trump prepares to sign an executive order directing agencies to look into “most-favored-nation” pricing, a policy that would set U.S. drug prices to the lowest level paid by similar countries. The president explored that policy during his first administration, and the drug industry sued to stop it. Drugmakers are already on edge over Trump’s plan to impose tariffs on drugs and their ingredients.
- And Kennedy is scheduled to appear before the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee next week. The hearing would be the first time the secretary of Health and Human Services has appeared before the HELP Committee since his confirmation hearings — and all eyes are on the committee’s GOP chairman, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a physician who expressed deep concerns at the time, including about Kennedy’s stances on vaccines.
Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Lauren Sausser, who co-reported and co-wrote the latest KFF Health News’ “Bill of the Month” installment, about an unexpected bill for what seemed like preventive care. If you have an outrageous, baffling, or infuriating medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.
Plus, for “extra credit” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:
Julie Rovner: NPR’s “Fired, Rehired, and Fired Again: Some Federal Workers Find They’re Suddenly Uninsured,” by Andrea Hsu.
Maya Goldman: Stat’s “Europe Unveils $565 Million Package To Retain Scientists, and Attract New Ones,” by Andrew Joseph.
Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “A Former TV Writer Found a Health-Care Loophole That Threatens To Blow Up Obamacare,” by Zachary R. Mider and Zeke Faux.
Sandhya Raman: The Louisiana Illuminator’s “In the Deep South, Health Care Fights Echo Civil Rights Battles,” by Anna Claire Vollers.
Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:
- ProPublica’s series “Life of the Mother: How Abortion Bans Lead to Preventable Deaths,” by Kavitha Surana, Lizzie Presser, Cassandra Jaramillo, and Stacy Kranitz, and the winner of the 2025 Pulitzer Prize for public service journalism.
- The New York Times’ “G.O.P. Targets a Medicaid Loophole Used by 49 States To Grab Federal Money,” by Margot Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff.
- KFF Health News’ “Seeking Spending Cuts, GOP Lawmakers Target a Tax Hospitals Love to Pay,” by Phil Galewitz.
- Axios’ “Out-of-Pocket Drug Spending Hit $98B in 2024: Report,” by Maya Goldman.
click to open the transcript
Transcript: Cutting Medicaid Is Hard — Even for the GOP
[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, May 8, 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 a videoconference by Anna Edney of Bloomberg News.
Anna Edney: Hi, everybody.
Rovner: Maya Goldman of Axios News.
Maya Goldman: Great to be here.
Rovner: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.
Sandhya Raman: Good morning, everyone.
Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my “Bill of the Month” interview with my KFF Health News colleague Lauren Sausser. This month’s patient got preventive care they assumed would be covered by their Affordable Care Act health plan, except it wasn’t. But first, this week’s news.
We’re going to start on Capitol Hill, where Sandhya is coming directly from, where regular listeners to this podcast will be not one bit surprised that Republicans working on President [Donald] Trump’s one “big, beautiful” budget reconciliation bill are at an impasse over how and how deeply to cut the Medicaid program. Originally, the House Energy and Commerce Committee was supposed to mark up its portion of the bill this week, but that turned out to be too optimistic. Now they’re shooting for next week, apparently Tuesday or so, they’re saying, and apparently that Memorial Day goal to finish the bill is shifting to maybe the Fourth of July? But given what’s leaking out of the closed Republican meetings on this, even that might be too soon. Where are we with these Medicaid negotiations?
Raman: I would say a lot has been happening, but also a lot has not been happening. I think that anytime we’ve gotten any little progress on knowing what exactly is at the top of the list, it gets walked back. So earlier this week we had a meeting with a lot of the moderates in Speaker [Mike] Johnson’s office and trying to get them on board with some of the things that they were hesitant about, and following the meeting, Speaker Johnson had said that two of the things that have been a little bit more contentious — changing the federal match for the expansion population and instituting per capita caps for states — were off the table. But the way that he phrased it is kind of interesting in that he said stay tuned and that it possibly could change.
And so then yesterday when we were hearing from the Energy and Commerce Committee, it seemed like these things are still on the table. And then Speaker Johnson has kind of gone back on that and said, I said it was likely. So every time we kind of have any sort of change, it’s really unclear if these things are in the mix, outside the mix. When we pulled them off the table, we had a lot of the hard-line conservatives get really upset about this because it’s not enough savings. So I think any way that you push it with such narrow margins, it’s been difficult to make any progress, even though they’ve been having a lot of meetings this week.
Rovner: One of the things that surprised me was apparently the Senate Republicans are weighing in. The Senate Republicans who aren’t even set to make Medicaid cuts under their version of the budget resolution are saying that the House needs to go further. Where did that come from?
Raman: It’s just been a difficult process to get anything across. I mean, in the House side, a lot of it has been, I think, election-driven. You see the people that are not willing to make as many concessions are in competitive districts. The people that want to go a little bit more extreme on what they’re thinking are in much more safe districts. And then in the Senate, I think there’s a lot more at play just because they have longer terms, they have more to work with. So some of the pushback has been from people that it would directly affect their states or if the governors have weighed in. But I think that there are so many things that they do want to get done, since there is much stronger agreement on some of the immigration stuff and the taxes that they want to find the savings somewhere. If they don’t find it, then the whole thing is moot.
Rovner: So meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office at the request of Democrats is out with estimates of what some of these Medicaid options would mean for coverage, and it gives lie to some of these Republican claims that they can cut nearly a trillion dollars from Medicaid without touching benefits, right? I mean all of these — and Maya, your nodding.
Goldman: Yeah.
Rovner: All of these things would come with coverage losses.
Goldman: Yeah, I think it’s important to think about things like work requirements, which has gotten a lot of support from moderate Republicans. The only way that that produces savings is if people come off Medicaid as a result. Work requirements in and of themselves are not saving any money. So I know advocates are very concerned about any level of cuts. I talked to somebody from a nursing home association who said: We can’t pick and choose. We’re not in a position to pick and choose which are better or worse, because at this point, everything on the table is bad for us. So I think people are definitely waiting with bated breath there.
Rovner: Yeah, I’ve heard a lot of Republicans over the last week or so with the talking points. If we’re just going after fraud and abuse then we’re not going to cut anybody’s benefits. And it’s like — um, good luck with that.
Goldman: And President Trump has said that as well.
Rovner: That’s right. Well, one place Congress could recoup a lot of money from Medicaid is by cracking down on provider taxes, which 49 of the 50 states use to plump up their federal Medicaid match, if you will. Basically the state levies a tax on hospitals or nursing homes or some other group of providers, claims that money as their state share to draw down additional federal matching Medicaid funds, then returns it to the providers in the form of increased reimbursement while pocketing the difference. You can call it money laundering as some do, or creative financing as others do, or just another way to provide health care to low-income people.
But one thing it definitely is, at least right now, is legal. Congress has occasionally tried to crack down on it since the late 1980s. I have spent way more time covering this fight than I wish I had, but the combination of state and health provider pushback has always prevented it from being eliminated entirely. If you want a really good backgrounder, I point you to the excellent piece in The New York Times this week by our podcast pals Margot Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff. What are you guys hearing about provider taxes and other forms of state contributions and their future in all of this? Is this where they’re finally going to look to get a pot of money?
Raman: It’s still in the mix. The tricky thing is how narrow the margins are, and when you have certain moderates having a hard line saying, I don’t want to cut more than $500 billion or $600 billion, or something like that. And then you have others that don’t want to dip below the $880 billion set for the Energy and Commerce Committee. And then there are others that have said it’s not about a specific number, it’s what is being cut. So I think once we have some more numbers for some of the other things, it’ll provide a better idea of what else can fit in. Because right now for work requirements, we’re going based on some older CBO [Congressional Budget Office] numbers. We have the CBO numbers that the Democrats asked for, but it doesn’t include everything. And piecing that together is the puzzle, will illuminate some of that, if there are things that people are a little bit more on board with. But it’s still kind of soon to figure out if we’re not going to see draft text until early next week.
Goldman: I think the tricky thing with provider taxes is that it’s so baked into the way that Medicaid functions in each state. And I think I totally co-sign on the New York Times article. It was a really helpful explanation of all of this, and I would bet that you’ll see a lot of pushback from state governments, including Republicans, on a proposal that makes severe changes to that.
Rovner: Someday, but not today, I will tell the story of the 1991 fight over this in which there was basically a bizarre dealmaking with individual senators to keep this legal. That was a year when the Democrats were trying to get rid of it. So it’s a bipartisan thing. All right, well, moving on.
It wouldn’t be a Thursday morning if we didn’t have breaking federal health personnel news. Today was supposed to be the confirmation hearing for surgeon general nominee and Fox News contributor Janette Nesheiwat. But now her nomination has been pulled over some questions about whether she was misrepresenting her medical education credentials, and she’s already been replaced with the nomination of Casey Means, the sister of top [Health and Human Services] Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] aide Calley Means, who are both leaders in the MAHA [“Make America Healthy Again”] movement. This feels like a lot of science deniers moving in at one time. Or is it just me?
Edney: Yeah, I think that the Meanses have been in this circle, names floated for various things at various times, and this was a place where Casey Means fit in. And certainly she espouses a lot of the views on, like, functional medicine and things that this administration, at least RFK Jr., seems to also subscribe to. But the one thing I’m not as clear on her is where she stands with vaccines, because obviously Nesheiwat had fudged on her school a little bit, and—
Rovner: Yeah, I think she did her residency at the University of Arkansas—
Edney: That’s where.
Rovner: —and she implied that she’d graduated from the University of Arkansas medical school when in fact she graduated from an accredited Caribbean medical school, which lots of doctors go to. It’s not a sin—
Edney: Right.
Rovner: —and it’s a perfectly, as I say, accredited medical school. That was basically — but she did fudge it on her resume.
Edney: Yeah.
Rovner: So apparently that was one of the things that got her pulled.
Edney: Right. And the other, kind of, that we’ve seen in recent days, again, is Laura Loomer coming out against her because she thinks she’s not anti-vaccine enough. So what the question I think to maybe be looking into today and after is: Is Casey Means anti-vaccine enough for them? I don’t know exactly the answer to that and whether she’ll make it through as well.
Rovner: Well, we also learned this week that Vinay Prasad, a controversial figure in the covid movement and even before that, has been named to head the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] Center for Biologics and Evaluation Research, making him the nation’s lead vaccine regulator, among other things. Now he does have research bona fides but is a known skeptic of things like accelerated approval of new drugs, and apparently the biotech industry, less than thrilled with this pick, Anna?
Edney: Yeah, they are quite afraid of this pick. You could see it in the stocks for a lot of vaccine companies, for some other companies particularly. He was quite vocal and quite against the covid vaccines during covid and even compared them to the Nazi regime. So we know that there could be a lot of trouble where, already, you know, FDA has said that they’re going to require placebo-controlled trials for new vaccines and imply that any update to a covid vaccine makes it a new vaccine. So this just spells more trouble for getting vaccines to market and quickly to people. He also—you mentioned accelerated approval. This is a way that the FDA uses to try to get promising medicines to people faster. There are issues with it, and people have written about the fact that they rely on what are called surrogate endpoints. So not Did you live longer? but Did your tumor shrink?
And you would think that that would make you live longer, but it actually turns out a lot of times it doesn’t. So you maybe went through a very strong medication and felt more terrible than you might have and didn’t extend your life. So there’s a lot of that discussion, and so that. There are other drugs. Like this Sarepta drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a big one that Vinay Prasad has come out against, saying that should have never been approved, because it was using these kind of surrogate endpoints. So I think biotech’s pretty — thinking they’re going to have a lot tougher road ahead to bring stuff to market.
Rovner: And I should point out that over the very long term, this has been the continuing struggle at FDA. It’s like, do you protect the public but make people wait longer for drugs or do you get the drugs out and make sure that people who have no other treatments available have something available? And it’s been a constant push and pull. It’s not really been partisan. Sometimes you get one side pushing and the other side pushing back. It’s really nothing new. It’s just the sort of latest iteration of this.
Edney: Right. Yeah. This is the pendulum swing, back to the Maybe we need to be slowing it down side. It’s also interesting because there are other discussions from RFK Jr. that, like, We need to be speeding up approvals and Trump wants to speed up approvals. So I don’t know where any of this will actually come down when the rubber meets the road, I guess.
Rovner: Sandhya and Maya, I see you both nodding. Do you want to add something?
Raman: I think this was kind of a theme that I also heard this week in the — we had the Senate Finance hearing for some of the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] nominees, and Jim O’Neill, who’s one of the nominees, that was something that was brought up by Finance ranking member Ron Wyden, that some of his past remarks when he was originally considered to be on the short list for FDA commissioner last Trump administration is that he basically said as long as it’s safe, it should go ahead regardless of efficacy. So those comments were kind of brought back again, and he’s in another hearing now, so that might come up as an issue in HELP [the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions] today.
Rovner: And he’s the nominee for deputy secretary, right? Have to make sure I keep all these things straight. Maya, you wanting to add something?
Goldman: Yeah, I was just going to say, I think there is a divide between these two philosophies on pharmaceuticals, and my sense is that the selection of Prasad is kind of showing that the anti-accelerated-approval side is winning out. But I think Anna is correct that we still don’t know where it’s going to land.
Rovner: Yes, and I will point out that accelerated approval first started during AIDS when there was no treatments and basically people were storming the — literally physically storming — the FDA, demanding access to AIDS drugs, which they did finally get. But that’s where accelerated approval came from. This is not a new fight, and it will continue.
Turning to abortion, the Trump administration surprised a lot of people this week when it continued the Biden administration’s position asking for that case in Texas challenging the abortion pill to be dropped. For those who’ve forgotten, this was a case originally filed by a bunch of Texas medical providers demanding the judge overrule the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone in the year 2000. The Supreme Court ruled the original plaintiff lacked standing to sue, but in the meantime, three states —Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas — have taken their place as plaintiffs. But now the Trump administration points out that those states have no business suing in the Northern District of Texas, which kind of seems true on its face. But we should not mistake this to think that the Trump administration now supports the current approval status of the abortion bill. Right, Sandhya?
Raman: Yeah, I think you’re exactly right. It doesn’t surprise me. If they had allowed these three states, none of which are Texas — they shouldn’t have standing. And if they did allow them to, that would open a whole new can of worms for so many other cases where the other side on so many issues could cherry-pick in the same way. And so I think, I assume, that this will come up in future cases for them and they will continue with the positions they’ve had before. But this was probably in their best interest not to in this specific one.
Rovner: Yeah. There are also those who point out that this could be a way of the administration protecting itself. If it wants to roll back or reimpose restrictions on the abortion pill, it would help prevent blue states from suing to stop that. So it serves a double purpose here, right?
Raman: Yeah. I couldn’t see them doing it another way. And even if you go through the ruling, the language they use, it’s very careful. It’s not dipping into talking fully about abortion. It’s going purely on standing. Yeah.
Rovner: There’s nothing that says, We think the abortion pill is fine the way it is. It clearly does not say that, although they did get the headlines — and I’m sure the president wanted — that makes it look like they’re towing this middle ground on abortion, which they may be but not necessarily in this case.
Well, before we move off of reproductive health, a shoutout here to the incredible work of ProPublica, which was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for public service this week for its stories on women who died due to abortion bans that prevented them from getting care for their pregnancy complications. Regular listeners of the podcast will remember that we talked about these stories as they came out last year, but I will post another link to them in the show notes today.
OK, moving on. There’s even more drug price news this week, starting with the return of, quote, “most favored nation” drug pricing. Anna, remind us what this is and why it’s controversial.
Edney: Yeah. So the idea of most favored nation, this is something President Trump has brought up before in his first administration, but it creates a basket, essentially, of different prices that nations pay. And we’re going to base ours on the lowest price that is paid for—
Rovner: We’re importing other countries’—
Edney: —prices.
Rovner: —price limits.
Edney: Yeah. Essentially, yes. We can’t import their drugs, but we can import their prices. And so the goal is to just basically piggyback off of whoever is paying the lowest price and to base ours off of that. And clearly the drug industry does not like this and, I think, has faced a number of kind of hits this week where things are looming that could really come after them. So Politico broke that news that Trump is going to sign or expected to sign an executive order that will direct his agencies to look into this most-favored-nation effort. And it feels very much like 2.0, like we were here before. And it didn’t exactly work out, obviously.
Rovner: They sued, didn’t they? The drug industry sued, as I recall.
Edney: Yeah, I think you’re right. Yes.
Goldman: If I’m remembering—
Rovner: But I think they won.
Goldman: If I’m remembering correctly, it was an Administrative Procedure Act lawsuit though, right? So—
Rovner: It was. Yes. It was about a regulation. Yes.
Goldman: —who knows what would happen if they go through a different procedure this time.
Rovner: So the other thing, obviously, that the drug industry is freaked out about right now are tariffs, which have been on again, off again, on again, off again. Where are we with tariffs on — and it’s not just tariffs on drugs being imported. It’s tariffs on drug ingredients being imported, right?
Edney: Yeah. And that’s a particularly rough one because many ingredients are imported, and then some of the drugs are then finished here, just like a car. All the pieces are brought in and then put together in one place. And so this is something the Trump administration has began the process of investigating. And PhRMA [Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America], the trade group for the drug industry, has come out officially, as you would expect, against the tariffs, saying that: This will reduce our ability to do R&D. It will raise the price of drugs that Americans pay, because we’re just going to pass this on to everyone. And so we’re still in this waiting zone of seeing when or exactly how much and all of that for the tariffs for pharma.
Rovner: And yet Americans are paying — already paying — more than they ever have. Maya, you have a story just about that. Tell us.
Goldman: Yeah, there was a really interesting report from an analytics data firm that showed the price that Americans are paying for prescriptions is continuing to climb. Also, the number of prescriptions that Americans are taking is continuing to climb. It certainly will be interesting to see if this administration can be any more successful. That report, I don’t think this made it into the article that I ended up writing, but it did show that the cost of insulin is down. And that’s something that has been a federal policy intervention. We haven’t seen a lot of the effects yet of the Medicare drug price negotiations, but I think there are signs that that could lower the prices that people are paying. So I think it’s interesting to just see the evolution of all of this. It’s very much in flux.
Rovner: A continuing effort. Well, we are now well into the second hundred days of Trump 2.0, and we’re still learning about the cuts to health and health-related programs the administration is making. Just in this week’s rundown are stories about hundreds more people being laid off at the National Cancer Institute, a stop-work order at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases research lab at Fort Detrick, Maryland, that studies Ebola and other deadly infectious diseases, and the layoff of most of the remaining staff at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
A reminder that this is all separate from the discretionary-spending budget request that the administration sent up to lawmakers last week. That document calls for a 26% cut in non-mandatory funding at HHS, meaning just about everything other than Medicare and Medicaid. And it includes a proposed $18 billion cut to the NIH [National Institutes of Health] and elimination of the $4 billion Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps millions of low-income Americans pay their heating and air conditioning bills. Now, this is normally the part of the federal budget that’s deemed dead on arrival. The president sends up his budget request, and Congress says, Yeah, we’re not doing that. But this at least does give us an idea of what direction the administration wants to take at HHS, right? What’s the likelihood of Congress endorsing any of these really huge, deep cuts?
Raman: From both sides—
Rovner: Go ahead, Sandhya.
Raman: It’s not going to happen, and they need 60 votes in the Senate to pass the appropriations bills. I think that when we’re looking in the House in particular, there are a lot of things in what we know from this so-called skinny budget document that they could take up and put in their bill for Labor, HHS, and Education. But I think the Senate’s going to be a different story, just because the Senate Appropriations chair is Susan Collins and she, as soon as this came out, had some pretty sharp words about the big cuts to NIH. They’ve had one in a series of two hearings on biomedical research. Concerned about some of these kinds of things. So I cannot necessarily see that sharp of a cut coming to fruition for NIH, but they might need to make some concessions on some other things.
This is also just a not full document. It has some things and others. I didn’t see any to FDA in there at all. So that was a question mark, even though they had some more information in some of the documents that had leaked kind of earlier on a larger version of this budget request. So I think we’ll see more about how people are feeling next week when we start having Secretary Kennedy testify on some of these. But I would not expect most of this to make it into whatever appropriations law we get.
Goldman: I was just going to say that. You take it seriously but not literally, is what I’ve been hearing from people.
Edney: We don’t have a full picture of what has already been cut. So to go in and then endorse cutting some more, maybe a little bit too early for that, because even at this point they’re still bringing people back that they cut. They’re finding out, Oh, this is actually something that is really important and that we need, so to do even more doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense right now.
Rovner: Yeah, that state of disarray is purposeful, I would guess, and doing a really good job at sort of clouding things up.
Goldman: One note on the cuts. I talked to someone at HHS this week who said as they’re bringing back some of these specialized people, in order to maintain the legality of, what they see as the legality of, the RIF [reduction in force], they need to lay off additional people to keep that number consistent. So I think that is very much in flux still and interesting to watch.
Rovner: Yeah, and I think that’s part of what we were seeing this week is that the groups that got spared are now getting cut because they’ve had to bring back other people. And as I point out, I guess, every week, pretty much all of this is illegal. And as it goes to courts, judges say, You can’t do this. So everything is in flux and will continue.
All right, finally this week, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who as of now is scheduled to appear before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee next week to talk about the department’s proposed budget, is asking CDC [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] to develop new guidance for treating measles with drugs and vitamins. This comes a week after he ordered a change in vaccine policy you already mentioned, Anna, so that new vaccines would have to be tested against placebos rather than older versions of the vaccine. These are all exactly the kinds of things that Kennedy promised health committee chairman Bill Cassidy he wouldn’t do. And yet we’ve heard almost nothing from Cassidy about anything the secretary has said or done since he’s been in office. So what do we expect to happen when they come face-to-face with each other in front of the cameras next week, assuming that it happens?
Edney: I’m very curious. I don’t know. Do I expect a senator to take a stand? I don’t necessarily, but this—
Rovner: He hasn’t yet.
Edney: Yeah, he hasn’t yet. But this is maybe about face-saving too for him. So I don’t know.
Rovner: Face-saving for Kennedy or for Cassidy?
Edney: For Cassidy, given he said: I’m going to keep an eye on him. We’re going to talk all the time, and he is not going to do this thing without my input. I’m not sure how Cassidy will approach that. I think it’ll be a really interesting hearing that we’ll all be watching.
Rovner: Yes. And just little announcement, if it does happen, that we are going to do sort of a special Wednesday afternoon after the hearing with some of our KFF Health News colleagues. So we are looking forward to that hearing. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Lauren Sausser, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.
I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast KFF Health News’ Lauren Sausser, who co-reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News “Bill of the Month.” Lauren, welcome back.
Lauren Sausser: Thank you. Thanks for having me.
Rovner: So this month’s patient got preventive care, which the Affordable Care Act was supposed to incentivize by making it cost-free at the point of service — except it wasn’t. Tell us who the patient is and what kind of care they got.
Sausser: Carmen Aiken is from Chicago. Carmen uses they/them pronouns. And Carmen made an appointment in the summer of 2023 for an annual checkup. This is just like a wellness check that you are very familiar with. You get your vaccines updated. You get your weight checked. You talk to your doctor about your physical activity and your family history. You might get some blood work done. Standard stuff.
Rovner: And how big was the bill?
Sausser: The bill ended up being more than $1,400 when it should, in Carmen’s mind, have been free.
Rovner: Which is a lot.
Sausser: A lot.
Rovner: I assume that there was a complaint to the health plan and the health plan said, Nope, not covered. Why did they say that?
Sausser: It turns out that alongside with some blood work that was preventive, Carmen also had some blood work done to monitor an ongoing prescription. Because that blood test is not considered a standard preventive service, the entire appointment was categorized as diagnostic and not preventive. So all of these services that would’ve been free to them, available at no cost, all of a sudden Carmen became responsible for.
Rovner: So even if the care was diagnostic rather than strictly preventive — obviously debatable — that sounds like a lot of money for a vaccine and some blood test. Why was the bill so high?
Sausser: Part of the reason the bill was so high was because Carmen’s blood work was sent to a hospital for processing, and hospitals, as you know, can charge a lot more for the same services. So under Carmen’s health plan, they were responsible for, I believe it was, 50% of the cost of services performed in an outpatient hospital setting. And that’s what that blood work fell under. So the charges were high.
Rovner: So we’ve talked a lot on the podcast about this fight in Congress to create site-neutral payments. This is a case where that probably would’ve made a big difference.
Sausser: Yeah, it would. And there’s discussion, there’s bipartisan support for it. The idea is that you should not have to pay more for the same services that are delivered at different places. But right now there’s no legislation to protect patients like Carmen from incurring higher charges.
Rovner: So what eventually happened with this bill?
Sausser: Carmen ended up paying it. They put it on a credit card. This was of course after they tried appealing it to their insurance company. Their insurance company decided that they agreed with the provider that these services were diagnostic, not preventive. And so, yeah, Carmen was losing sleep over this and decided ultimately that they were just going to pay it.
Rovner: And at least it was a four-figure bill and not a five-figure bill.
Sausser: Right.
Rovner: What’s the takeaway here? I imagine it is not that you should skip needed preventive/diagnostic care. Some drugs, when you’re on them, they say that you should have blood work done periodically to make sure you’re not having side effects.
Sausser: Right. You should not skip preventive services. And that’s the whole intent behind this in the ACA. It catches stuff early so that it becomes more treatable. I think you have to be really, really careful and specific when you’re making appointments, and about your intention for the appointment, so that you don’t incur charges like this. I think that you can also be really careful about where you get your blood work conducted. A lot of times you’ll see these signs in the doctor’s office like: We use this lab. If this isn’t in-network with you, you need to let us know. Because the charges that you can face really vary depending on where those labs are processed. So you can be really careful about that, too.
Rovner: And adding to all of this, there’s the pending Supreme Court case that could change it, right?
Sausser: Right. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments. It was in April. I think it was on the 21st. And it is a case that originated out in Texas. There is a group of Christian businesses that are challenging the mandate in the ACA that requires health insurers to cover a lot of these preventive services. So obviously we don’t have a decision in the case yet, but we’ll see.
Rovner: We will, and we will cover it on the podcast. Lauren Sausser, thank you so much.
Sausser: Thank you.
Rovner: OK, we’re back. Now it’s 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. Maya, you were the first to choose this week, so why don’t you go first?
Goldman: My extra credit is from Stat. It’s called “Europe Unveils $565 Million Package To Retain Scientists, and Attract New Ones,” by Andrew Joseph. And I just think it’s a really interesting evidence point to the United States’ losses, other countries’ gain. The U.S. has long been the pinnacle of research science, and people flock to this country to do research. And I think we’re already seeing a reversal of that as cuts to NIH funding and other scientific enterprises is reduced.
Rovner: Yep. A lot of stories about this, too. Anna.
Edney: So mine is from a couple of my colleagues that they did earlier this week. “A Former TV Writer Found a Health-Care Loophole That Threatens To Blow Up Obamacare.” And I thought it was really interesting because it had brought me back to these cheap, bare-bones plans that people were allowed to start selling that don’t meet any of the Obamacare requirements. And so this guy who used to, in the ’80s and ’90s, wrote for sitcoms — “Coach” or “Night Court,” if anyone goes to watch those on reruns. But he did a series of random things after that and has sort of now landed on selling these junk plans, but doing it in a really weird way that signs people up for a job that they don’t know they’re being signed up for. And I think it’s just, it’s an interesting read because we knew when these things were coming online that this was shady and people weren’t going to get the coverage they needed. And this takes it to an extra level. They’re still around, and they’re still ripping people off.
Rovner: Or as I’d like to subhead this story: Creative people think of creative things.
Edney: “Creative” is a nice word.
Rovner: Sandhya.
Raman: So my pick is “In the Deep South, Health Care Fights Echo Civil Rights Battles,” and it’s from Anna Claire Vollers at the Louisiana Illuminator. And her story looks at some of the ties between civil rights and health. So 2025 is the 70th anniversary of the bus boycott, the 60th anniversary of Selma-to-Montgomery marches, the Voting Rights Act. And it’s also the 60th anniversary of Medicaid. And she goes into, Medicaid isn’t something you usually consider a civil rights win, but health as a human right was part of the civil rights movement. And I think it’s an interesting piece.
Rovner: It is an interesting piece, and we should point out Medicare was also a huge civil rights, important piece of law because it desegregated all the hospitals in the South. All right, my extra credit this week is a truly infuriating story from NPR by Andrea Hsu. It’s called “Fired, Rehired, and Fired Again: Some Federal Workers Find They’re Suddenly Uninsured.” And it’s a situation that if a private employer did it, Congress would be all over them and it would be making huge headlines. These are federal workers who are trying to do the right thing for themselves and their families but who are being jerked around in impossible ways and have no idea not just whether they have jobs but whether they have health insurance, and whether the medical care that they’re getting while this all gets sorted out will be covered. It’s one thing to shrink the federal workforce, but there is some basic human decency for people who haven’t done anything wrong, and a lot of now-former federal workers are not getting it at the moment.
OK, that is this week’s show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Thanks as always to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions, We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks hanging these days? Sandhya?
Raman: I’m on X, @SandhyaWrites, and also on Bluesky, @SandhyaWrites at Bluesky.
Rovner: Anna.
Edney: X and Bluesky, @annaedney.
Rovner: Maya.
Goldman: I am on X, @mayagoldman_. Same on Bluesky and also increasingly on LinkedIn.
Rovner: All right, we’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.
Credits
Francis Ying
Audio producer
Emmarie Huetteman
Editor
To hear all our podcasts, click here.
And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, 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).
2 months 3 weeks ago
Courts, COVID-19, Health Care Costs, Insurance, Medicaid, Multimedia, Pharmaceuticals, Public Health, States, The Health Law, Abortion, Bill Of The Month, Drug Costs, FDA, HHS, Hospitals, KFF Health News' 'What The Health?', NIH, Podcasts, Prescription Drugs, Preventive Services, reproductive health, Surprise Bills, Trump Administration, U.S. Congress, vaccines, Women's Health
Aumenta la desinformación sobre el sarampión, y las personas le prestan atención, dice una encuesta
Mientras la epidemia de sarampión más grave en una década ha causado la muerte de dos niños y se ha extendido a 27 estados sin dar señales de desacelerar, las creencias sobre la seguridad de la vacuna contra esta infección y la amenaza de la enfermedad se polarizan rápido, alimentadas por las opiniones antivacunas del funcionario de salud de mayor rango del país.
Aproximadamente dos tercios de los padres con inclinaciones republicanas desconocen el aumento en los casos de sarampión este año, mientras que cerca de dos tercios de los demócratas sabían sobre el tema, según una encuesta de KFF publicada el miércoles 23 de abril.
Los republicanos son mucho más escépticos con respecto a las vacunas y tienen el doble de probabilidades (1 de cada 5) que los demócratas (1 de cada 10) de creer que la vacuna contra el sarampión es peor que la enfermedad, según la encuesta realizada a 1.380 adultos estadounidenses.
Alrededor del 35% de los republicanos que respondieron a la encuesta, realizada del 8 al 15 de abril por internet y por teléfono, aseguraron que la teoría desacreditada que vincula la vacuna contra el sarampión, las paperas y la rubéola con el autismo era definitiva o probablemente cierta, en comparación con solo el 10% de los demócratas.
Las tendencias son prácticamente las mismas que las reportadas por KFF en una encuesta de junio de 2023.
Sin embargo, en la nueva encuesta, 3 de cada 10 padres creían erróneamente que la vitamina A puede prevenir las infecciones por el virus del sarampión, una teoría que Robert F. Kennedy Jr., el secretario de Salud y Servicios Humanos, ha diseminado desde que asumió el cargo, en medio del brote de sarampión.
Se han reportado alrededor de 900 casos en 27 estados, la mayoría en un brote centrado en el oeste de Texas.
“Lo más alarmante de la encuesta es que estamos observando un aumento en la proporción de personas que han escuchado estas afirmaciones”, afirmó la coautora Ashley Kirzinger, directora asociada del Programa de Investigación de Encuestas y Opinión Pública de KFF. (KFF es una organización sin fines de lucro dedicada a la información sobre salud que incluye a KFF Health News).
“No es que más gente crea en la teoría del autismo, sino que cada vez más gente escucha sobre ella”, afirmó Kirzinger. Debido a que las dudas sobre la seguridad de las vacunas es factor directo de la decision de los padres reducer la vacunación de sus hijos, “esto demuestra la importancia de que la información veraz forme parte del panorama mediático”, añadió.
“Esto es lo que cabría esperar cuando la gente está confundida por mensajes contradictorios provenientes de personas en posiciones de autoridad”, afirmó Kelly Moore, presidenta y directora ejecutiva de Immunize.org, un grupo de defensa de la vacunación.
Numerosos estudios científicos no han establecido ningún vínculo entre cualquier vacuna y el autismo. Sin embargo, Kennedy ha ordenado al Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS) que realice una investigación sobre los posibles factores ambientales que contribuyen al autismo, prometiendo tener “algunas de las respuestas” sobre el aumento en la incidencia de la afección para septiembre.
La profundización del escepticismo republicano hacia las vacunas dificulta la difusión de información precisa en muchas partes del país, afirmó Rekha Lakshmanan, directora de estrategia de The Immunization Partnership, en Houston.
El 23 de abril, Lakshmanan iba a presentar un documento sobre cómo contrarrestar el activismo antivacunas ante el Congreso Mundial de Vacunas en Washington. El documento se basaba en una encuesta que reveló que, en las asambleas estatales de Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas y Oklahoma, los legisladores con profesiones médicas se encontraban entre los menos propensos a apoyar las medidas de salud pública.
“Hay un componente político que influye en estos legisladores”, afirmó. Por ejemplo, cuando los legisladores invitan a quienes se oponen a las vacunas a testificar en las audiencias legislativas, se alimenta una avalancha de desinformación difícil de refutar, agregó.
Eric Ball, pediatra de Ladera Ranch, California, área afectada por un brote de sarampión en 2014-2015 que comenzó en Disneyland, afirmó que el miedo al sarampión y las restricciones más estrictas del estado de California sobre las exenciones de vacunas evitaron nuevas infecciones en su comunidad del condado de Orange.
“La mayor desventaja de las vacunas contra el sarampión es que funcionan muy bien. Todos se vacunan, nadie contrae sarampión, todos se olvidan del sarampión”, concluyó. “Pero cuando regresa la enfermedad, se dan cuenta de que hay niños que se están enfermando de gravedad, y potencialmente muriendo en la propia comunidad, y todos dicen: ‘¡Caramba! ¡Mejor que vacunemos!’”.
En 2015, Ball trató a tres niños muy enfermos de sarampión. Después, su consultorio dejó de atender a pacientes no vacunados. “Tuvimos bebés expuestos en nuestra sala de espera”, dijo. “Tuvimos una propagación de la enfermedad en nuestra oficina, lo cual fue muy desagradable”.
Aunque dos niñas que eran sanas murieron de sarampión durante el brote de Texas, “la gente todavía no le teme a la enfermedad”, dijo Paul Offit, director del Centro de Educación sobre Vacunas del Hospital Infantil de Philadelphia, que ha atendido algunos casos.
Pero las muertes “han generado más angustia, según la cantidad de llamadas que recibo de padres que intentan vacunar a sus bebés de 4 y 6 meses”, contó Offit. Los niños generalmente reciben su primera vacuna contra el sarampión al año de edad, porque tiende a no producir inmunidad completa si se administra antes.
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).
3 months 1 week ago
Noticias En Español, Public Health, States, Trump Administration, vaccines