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

Julie Rovner: Hello, from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. And, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Sept. 17, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: And Tami Luhby of CNN. 

Tami Luhby: Howdy. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with Sabrina Corlette, one of the authors of a new paper from the Georgetown University Center on Health Insurance Reforms, about some possible shorter-term fixes for what ails our dysfunctional healthcare system. But first, this week’s news. 

So I try not to talk too much here about artificial intelligence, partly because we at KFF already have a separate podcast devoted to AI and its implications for the business of health, and partly because I am one of the many, many Americans who doesn’t really understand it. But I feel like we really can’t avoid it this week, with AI leaders all but pleading with Congress for regulation, lest they accidentally, or not, create something that could literally kill all us humans. And while I don’t think any of us has the expertise to comment on whether some future AI might actually be justified in trying to rid the planet of humanity, given what we humans have done to the planet, I’m more interested in reports about humans currently using AI to do things like manipulate viruses to create, you know, a pandemic — but maybe even a more deadly one than the one that we just had. Anthropic, which touts itself as the most ethical and responsible of the big AI companies, said it has already . I feel like maybe this is something members of Congress might want to address in the near-term future? 

Edney: Definitely, I think that, like, the timing for this, given what’s going on in the larger AI world with these warnings that we’re seeing, was certainly very ominous for creating that potential worst pandemic that you’re talking about. And it does seem like it could be part of that discussion and what Congress may want to do; it could be sort of its own thing. It’s unclear how that’s going to be handled, especially, I think, we all are aware of the timing as well, with the midterms coming up and Congress not getting a lot done. And this is a really complicated subject, I think — the kind of issues with this report coming out was these could be just regular research queries. You know, it’s really unclear if this was nefarious. If it is, that’s really bad, and if it wasn’t, let’s not get worked up about something that isn’t there yet. But it does show that there’s the potential for that to happen. So …it’s good to think about it early. 

Rovner: And of course, the House, we should mention, has up and left until after the election. So they couldn’t do anything even if they wanted to. Alice, you wanted to add something? 

Ollstein: Yeah. So I was up on Capitol Hill yesterday, and there did not seem to be a groundswell of interest in rapid action and keeping the members in session to deal with this. I mean, when it comes, you know, to technology, especially, often federal policy is decades behind, you know, where the technology is going and moves so much slower. And I don’t know, even if there was the political will to stay in session and do something, if they would even know what to do or be able to come up with something quickly. This is something that could take years. Meanwhile, the technology itself is just leaping ahead in leaps and bounds, and so I am not optimistic about a robust response from Congress, given their record recently, and given what I witnessed on the Hill. Even though there is bipartisan interest in doing something, but what that something is, there is no agreement. 

Luhby: There’s a legitimate concern of how/what China is doing with AI, and even if we control what’s happening within our borders, we can’t control what’s happening with the development in the world. So that is an overarching problem that Congress can’t solve. 

Rovner: Right. 

Ollstein: I also often hear, you know, Oh, we should really pare back AI on everything except healthcare because it has so much promise in the healthcare space. But there’s also a lot of risk in the healthcare space. I mean, you were mentioning the development of potential viruses and bioweapons, but even beyond that, there’s already reports of AI being used to deny people’s claims, to entrench human biases in decision-making. You know, there’s a lot of risk in the healthcare space, too. It’s not all sunshine and rainbows and the risk is only in other areas. 

Rovner: Well, you are actually anticipating my next question, which is: Meanwhile, from the “AI might not actually kill us, but it’s going to make a lot of people rich” file, my former colleague Christina Jewett, now at The New York Times, has a about how medical AI entrepreneurs are exercising perhaps undue influence at the Department of Health and Human Services, and, according to the story, worrying some officials that AI adoption in medicine is coming faster than the evidence that it’s safe and effective — never mind money-saving. Again, as you were saying, Alice, I can’t imagine technology in medicine running ahead of attempts to regulate it. That’s only happened basically every time for the last 50 years. 

Edney: I think the attempts to regulate it are — the issue is who’s going to do the regulating. The FDA seems sort of split right now, where you have the traditional medical devices director, and this is Christina’s reporting, as you mentioned, Julie, someone … more in the commissioner’s office who is a tech-connected person wanting to wrest the AI part of regulation from the medical device center, where it normally sits. So I think that that question, too, is still being figured out. 

Rovner: And there’s even the, you know, what is AI? Is it a medical device? What kind of evidence would one need to approve it? Who would approve it? I mean, there’s definitely a lot more to come here. All right. Well … 

Luhby: Looking at healthcare’s role in the economy, it’s a major source of jobs right now and in the future, but it may not be, depending on what happens with AI. I was just actually at a doctor’s appointment at a major New York City medical center, and the doctor was speaking to, you know, a human assistant in the room, which I was — and I said to her, “Thank you so much for actually, you know, using humans.” And she sort of said, “Well, we’ll see how long that lasts,” indicating that her medical center may be really pushing doctors to use more AI scribes. And I was thinking, Wow, that’s going to cost a lot of people their jobs. 

Rovner: Although I just went to the doctor, and he was starting to use an AI scribe. He said he was just trying it out. So we will see how this all moves on. All right. 

Well, back to the pocketbook issues that seem to be driving voter anger this fall, even more than AI and data centers, President [Donald] Trump, the day after he floated the idea of sending all U.S. adults a $5,000 check if they return Republicans to power after the midterms, separately is proposing to send a $500 check before the elections to about a million unsubsidized enrollees in the Affordable Care Act plans. Unlike the $5,000, which would pretty clearly have to be approved by Congress — spoiler: probably won’t happen; it would be really expensive — the $500 ACA checks at least seem plausible. They represent unspent user fees the federal government has already collected. Two questions about this: One, is it really legal? And, if it is, and the administration does it, will it make up for the huge increases that most unsubsidized ACA enrollees saw in 2026 after the Biden-era extra subsidies expired? A lot of people saw increases that were a lot more than $500 just this year. 

Luhby: I mean, I think it’s questionable as to whether it’s legal and also whether it’s fair, because you’re also talking about giving this money only to be unsubsidized. And you can argue that, yes, the people who got subsidies already got, you know, a federal gift. But there are a lot of questions about these checks. But as far as whether they will make up for the massive increase in premium payments that a lot of folks have paid — especially for the people who didn’t receive subsidies, which, who are generally the people who make more than, you know, 400% of poverty, or … even a higher percentage, because the changes in the subsidy structure — those people are probably among the most … the ones who had the highest increases in premiums between ’25 and ’26. And there’s another round of double-digit premium increases on the way in 2027, or for 2027. So Cynthia Cox, one of our favorite experts at KFF, questioned whether $500 would even cover one month of a premium increase, much less one year. But, you know, as we know, healthcare costs are on the top of voters’ minds, and the Trump administration feels like it has to do something to say that it is helping to lower them ahead of the midterm elections. 

Rovner: Yeah, and this would be, I guess, something that they, in theory, could do. Well, moving on, it may be time to revisit one of the few bipartisan pieces of consumer health legislation of the past decade: the No Surprises Act. That law has successfully spared millions of patients from ending up in the middle of payment disputes between health insurers and medical providers. What it hasn’t done such a good job at, though, is settling those disputes in a cost-effective way. Instead, to quote from the Georgetown study that’s the subject of this week’s podcast interview with Sabrina Corlette, “the dispute resolution process created by the law has cost the health system an estimated $22 billion in just four years.” As a result of that, groups from across the ideological spectrum, from the liberal Families USA to the conservative Paragon Institute, as well as Republicans and Democrats on some key committees in Congress, are that something needs to change. Now this arbitration process that’s gotten so out of whack was the very last thing settled and almost scuttled this law on the launchpad. Is there a suitable alternative available, or will the magnitude of how badly this arbitration process is skewing in favor of providers who are getting enormous payouts going to force some sort of compromise? 

Edney: It seems like there needs to be a compromise. I was a little surprised that that’s being acknowledged. I think when this was first being talked about and coming to light, it seemed like the lawmakers were like, “Well, the law is working for patients,” and, like, “Well, you know, it’ll be OK.” But as you know, those numbers are coming in, that’s … billions of dollars. That’s a huge amount. And, you know, there are options. I think a lot of it was talked about and not agreed upon. But maybe benchmarking these to what Medicare pays or something along those lines when there’s a dispute could be more palatable, given, you know, what’s going on now that they’ve seen the results of what ended up being put into law. 

Rovner: Of course, that was, I mean, that was the hope when they were doing this is that they would set some sort of upward bound of, you know, yes … 

Edney: Right. 

Rovner: And sure, if you’re trying to lowball the provider, we’re going to make sure the provider gets at least something, you know, that’s reasonable if they’re not in-network. Except what’s happening is, with these arbitrations, these providers are getting things that are way more than anticipated, and that’s turning back into these premium increases that we were just talking about. I mean, it’s all sort of one big circle here. 

Luhby: Right, and that’s one thing that, you know, as Politico reported this morning, that’s one thing that employers and insurers want to make sure that people know, and that congresspeople know, is that these increases, these, you know, these payouts that they have to provide for the doctors are going to increase premiums. And you know, as we just discussed, healthcare is on the top of voters’ minds. Already, you know, various consulting groups have said that employer coverage, which is the most prevalent type of coverage, the premiums again are going to increase by a lot for 2027. And, you know, again the employers and insurers are pointing fingers at this arbitration, you know, provision and what doctors are doing and how they’re manipulating it as one of the drivers of these increased healthcare costs and premiums. 

Rovner: All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back. 

Moving to immigration, this week nearly half the states filed suit in federal court to block the Trump administration’s new, quote, “public charge rule.” That’s what gives immigration officials more leeway to block people from entering the country who they think could eventually qualify for government aid. Tami, you wrote about this. What are the states arguing, and what are they asking for? 

Luhby: Well, the main concern here — they want the rule to be blocked, but it looks like it’s supposed to go into effect tomorrow. And at this point, we know that the judge — there are two lawsuits: there’s states and cities — and the judge — it shouldn’t be probably the same judge, but we don’t know for sure yet. And the judge who has been assigned to the state lawsuit is not holding an initial hearing until, I think, it’s Oct. 9, or it’s early October, so it does look like the new rules will go into effect on Friday. But basically, what the concern is is that this is going to end up causing a lot of immigrants, particularly their families, particularly their U.S. citizen children, who may be eligible for benefits like Medicaid, like CHIP [Children’s Health Insurance Program], like housing vouchers, food stamps, school meals, WIC [Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children]. There’s, you know, a huge number of safety net programs that these immigrants and their families may choose to drop out of or not enroll in, and this is going to cause, obviously, you know, major concerns for hunger, for health, and housing. And the cities and states are arguing that they’re going to be harmed because they’re going to have to pick up the tabs. And, you know, these people will still need to, you know, obviously have healthcare and housing and food when it comes to it, so they’re concerned about their public costs as well as their local economies. 

Rovner: Yeah, and I mean that’s a really important point, which is that this is not just about people coming into the country. This is about people who are already here. Alice, I know you’ve done some reporting on the whole public charge issue, and we’ve got a really good Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News story that I will link to this week that’s called “A Generation of Kids Suffer as Trump Destabilizes Immigrant Families.” This is really reaching much beyond — you know, they originally, he said we’re just going to deport the worst of the worst — but this is reaching much, much further into immigrant communities here legally in the United States, right? 

Ollstein: Yeah, and I think there are just a lot of downstream consequences of this that we saw the first time they did this in the first Trump administration, and that, you know, folks are predicting will happen again that impacts everyone in the community. So for one, immigrants tend to be younger than the general population, and so removing them from these, you know, insurance systems could raise other people’s premiums — you know, the people who remain, because the costs will be higher. It’ll be an older, sicker population sharing those costs. Also, you are seeing that when these rules go into effect, people who remain eligible for the insurance programs, just out of confusion or fear, don’t enroll, and so it impacts even the people it doesn’t officially apply to, through a chilling effect, which, again, you know, leads to those same higher premiums and worse risk pool. But also, you have, you know, you mentioned risks of infectious diseases; if you deter people from getting preventive care, from getting vaccines, from getting checkups, that puts the whole community at risk. 

Rovner: Yeah. 

Luhby: And even DHS [Department of Homeland Security] itself acknowledges that there’s going to be a chilling effect. They estimated that 950,000 people may opt to leave or not enroll in — they examined six public benefit programs: Medicaid, food stamps, CHIP, federal assistance — and I think nearly a million people who, you know, are eligible for these safety net programs who may not participate. 

Rovner: Well, I guess that is one way to cut the budget. 

Turning to reproductive health, Alice, there’s movement on that story you’ve been following about testing wastewater [drinking water] for remnants of abortion pills. Now, what’s the latest? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so this was a story my colleagues and I broke recently that the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] itself is now going to do some testing on this front. Of course, they’re not testing just for abortion pills; they’re testing for a bunch of different pharmaceutical medications. But putting abortion pills on that bigger list is, you know, something that anti-abortion groups have been clamoring for years and are . Of course, they’re still pushing for a separate process where EPA would require utilities around the country to monitor for certain drugs, including abortion pills. And so they’re still pushing on that front. But they consider this a step towards, you know, potential restrictions. Now, it’s important to know that the test the EPA is using only will show if any amount is detectable in the water; it will not determine the concentration. And so even if they say, “OK, we found traces of this,” it doesn’t mean it has any impact on plants, animals, humans. It does not mean that. So whatever they come up with, it’s important for people to keep that in mind. Environmental experts we talked to stress that this is sort of a bad-faith push. There is no evidence that there’s any actual environmental harm here. Pharmaceutical contamination of water is a real thing, but there are medications that are way more of a threat in their minds than this one. 

Rovner: Yeah, but this is what they’ve been pushing as yet another way to try to go after abortion pills. Well, meanwhile, while the FDA continues to restudy the safety of mifepristone, at the urging of anti-abortion groups, in California, the attorney general is wrapping up a lawsuit against two anti-abortion nonprofits for their proffering of that purport to stop a medical abortion partway through. Unlike mifepristone, which has been studied in many clinical trials in the U.S. and internationally, there is no evidence that giving the hormone progesterone can save a pregnancy partway through a medical abortion. Alice, how big an impact could this case have, and when do we expect to hear from the judge? 

Ollstein: So this could really set a precedent. There are a lot of legal battles around the country. There’s another one the New York attorney general is in the middle of that is similar to this one. But it’s getting into this interesting space between protecting patients versus free speech and what clinics, even, you know, less-regulated crisis pregnancy centers, like the ones that are at issue in this case, what they can tell people and whether states are able to regulate that in the name of protecting patients from potential harm. Like you said, this hormone regimen, where after you take mifepristone, which is an anti-progesterone, you know, they’re saying, Oh, if you change your mind and you don’t want to have an abortion after all, you can take a high dose of progesterone to counteract the effects and save the pregnancy. Again, this has been very little studied, and the studies that have happened are methodologically weak. They don’t have control groups. They don’t have random sampling. They’re very, very small numbers. Whereas, like you said, the medical studies of mifepristone itself have been covered millions over the years, and so there’s just a lot more evidence of the safety record. And so, this could be really interesting coming out of California, in terms of these clinics, which have really become a major front in the anti-abortion movement’s larger battle. These centers are very prevalent around the country and have only grown in number since Roe v. Wade was overturned, and so they’re really seen as sort of the forefront of spreading the anti-abortion movement’s message. 

Rovner: Well, speaking of lawsuits that might set a precedent, the family of Tierra Walker, a 37-year-old pregnant woman who died in Texas of multiple complications after being repeatedly denied an abortion, has filed a malpractice suit against her doctors and is also suing Texas Attorney General and Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton. Paxton, you may remember, personally threatened individual legal action against doctors who performed abortions, even on women whose medical conditions apparently qualified for exceptions to the state’s ban. What does it mean that they’re actually going after Paxton personally — or, I guess, in his role as attorney general in this case? 

Ollstein: Yeah, they’re going after state officials, and they’re going after the hospital, the doctors. There’s a lot of different charges in this one case. There’s medical malpractice charges. There’s [Americans with Disabilities Act] ADA-like discrimination, refusing-of-care charges. There’s the constitutional charges about the law itself. And so this is really sort of getting into new territory. It’s something I covered in my book, that doctors largely have reported that when they’re operating under abortion bans, they’re more afraid of providing what, even what they consider a medically necessary abortion. They’re more afraid of the legal consequences of providing it than the legal consequences of not providing it. And this is an attempt, and there have been some others to try to change that calculus. So I know there’s an ongoing case in Georgia as well, a medical malpractice case. But it’s sort of attempting to make doctors also afraid of the legal consequences of not providing what could be a lifesaving abortion, and we’ll see what the outcome is in this instance. 

Rovner: And we’ll talk more about this, and we’ll talk more about your book in the coming weeks as we get ready for its launch. Well, finally, this week the House may be gone, but the Senate is still here, and two Senate committees held confirmation hearings this week for Chris Klomp, the Medicare official who’s been nominated to be deputy HHS secretary, as well as a hearing for Nicole Saphier, the radiologist and former Fox News contributor, who is the latest nominee for U.S. surgeon general. At both the Finance Committee, which will vote on Clomp, and the health committee, which will vote on Saphier, there were lots of questions about the administration’s position on vaccines. This comes as Pennsylvania announces its third and fourth measles-related death this summer, and as HHS Secretary RFK Jr. [Robert F. Kennedy Jr.] gives a keynote address here in Washington today at his former nonprofit, the anti-vax group Children’s Health Defense. Interestingly, both Klomp, who is not a doctor, and Saphier, who is a doctor, sort of, kind of endorsed the measles vaccine, but neither appeared enthusiastic enough to satisfy HELP [Health, Education, Labor & Pensions] Committee Chair Bill Cassidy, who’s also on the Finance Committee, of their sincerity. Cassidy delivered some of his strongest critiques yet of the damage the administration is doing by promoting vaccine hesitance. Yet I wonder if Cassidy would plan to vote against either of these nominees, or if any Republicans plan to vote against either of these nominees. 

Edney: I think that’s a great question. And Cassidy clearly has not done that in situations where the stakes — you know, it seemed like, you know, he had more reason almost, I mean, there was more, at least, like, outwardly publicly, you know, conflicting with his stance, and he didn’t do it. So he is leaving Congress, so that could change things for him. But I’m not sure that I would expect some sort of vote that really spoke out against Trump at this point. 

Rovner: He voted to confirm the new CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] director, about whom he had basically the same questions. 

Edney: Yeah, “Boy Who Cried Wolf,” I think is what that was. 

Rovner: All right. Well, that is this week’s news. Now we’ll play my interview with Sabrina Corlette, and then we’ll come back with our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast Sabrina Corlette. Sabrina is a research professor, founder, and co-director of Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. She’s also the co-author of a brand-new paper called “A Three-Part Strategy for Better Health Insurance” that includes a series of policy changes Congress could make in the short term that could help patients better navigate our messed-up healthcare system. Sabrina Corlette, thanks for joining us. 

Sabrina Corlette: Oh, it is such a delight, Julie. Thank you for having me. 

Rovner: So, I think a lot of us have been predicting that rising costs, lowering access, and increasing confusion is frustrating patients to the point that the nation is likely headed for another major healthcare debate, probably after the next presidential election. But this paper focuses on smaller changes that could be made in the nearer future. What made you decide to look at that? 

Corlette: Well, I’ll be honest, Julie, one inspiration was the KFF [Health News] “Bill of the Month” series. You know, I follow that series, and I just saw story after story about patients encountering just the craziest billing situations, coverage challenges, and it just struck me — particularly in this last year, where we had this big debate over Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, and a number of groups and lawmakers were defending a status quo that, quite frankly, nobody was happy with — and so I got together with some of my colleagues, you know, what are some concrete things that would have a tangible impact on people’s experience with their health insurance that can be done quickly, would not require a lot of money — because as you know, Julie, all too well, anytime you want to improve coverage, immediately employers and others say, “Well, this is just going to raise premiums.” So we wanted to come up with something that could immediately improve coverage without raising costs, and learn from some state actions that, you know, are quite frankly happening on a bipartisan basis. So, things that felt achievable. 

Rovner: Right. So, your first part is looking at immediate ways to reduce healthcare costs. What are some of those proposals? 

Corlette: Yeah. Sort of a marquee proposal in here is to bring down deductibles. Deductibles have risen 43% over the last decade or so, and they’re just [an] insurmountable cost barrier for so many American families. So that’s No. 1. But as you know, Julie, if you were to try to lower deductibles across the board, it’s like pushing on a balloon, right? Immediately, premiums are going to go up. So the second part of that proposal is to reduce spending on excessive hospital prices that are, you know, many, many multiples of the Medicare rates. And we’ve seen real progress on that at the state level, with states as diverse as Indiana and Vermont starting to rein in most hospital prices. 

Rovner: And we’ve seen both Democrats and Republicans pointing their fingers at hospitals. We’ve talked about that a lot on the podcast — that hospitals are clearly one of the big drivers right now. That seems to be getting through to policymakers, if not to patients. 

Corlette: That’s right. Yep. 

Rovner: That’s the cost part. Next is reducing unnecessary complexity, which I know is something that everybody would appreciate. What are a couple of the things that we could do there? 

Corlette: Yeah, I mean the main thing that we looked at there was the prolific use of what’s called prior authorization, which is, like, before you can get a healthcare good or service, you have to run it by your health plan and get their advance approval. And that’s just, you know, it used to be that that was really used for certain experimental or very, very high-cost types of services, and now it’s just endemic. And so we propose a number of reforms to — not eliminate that practice because, you know, you do need some checks on the system — but to really try to streamline it and reduce the burden for not only patients but physicians as well. 

Rovner: So last is protecting patients from corporate abuses — again, something that seems to have some bipartisan backing and that people get really furious about? 

Corlette: Yeah, and here the list is pretty long, but I’ll just [home] in on one element, which is reining in some of the more egregious financial practices of private equity, which has really entered the healthcare space in a big way in the last decade or so. And so trying to limit some of the transactions that they engage in that sort of strip assets from a healthcare provider to line the pockets of the investors and really drain away the infrastructure of the, say, the hospital or health system, so that it’s not able to provide as high-quality care. 

Rovner: Things like buying the hospital and then selling the real estate out from underneath, so the hospital now has to pay rent. 

Corlette: Exactly. 

Rovner: And you want to fix the dispute resolution system from something that Congress already tried to fix on a bipartisan basis, which is stopping surprise bills, right? 

Corlette: Oh my gosh, yeah. I mean, you know, that’s one of those issues, again, I think could be very bipartisan. And it’s not every provider in the system, but largely private equity-backed physician group practices really taking advantage of the dispute resolution process under the No Surprises Act to the tune of $22 billion in costs. All that is being passed on in the form of higher premiums for employers and policyholders. So, yeah, we propose some significant reforms to that process. 

Rovner: So, all of these things together are what we health policy types like to refer to as low-hanging fruit, in that it would be less controversial, say, than “Medicare for All.” But we’ve seen that even incremental changes like these that have bipartisan support can be really hard to push through. How optimistic are you that this Congress and this administration, both of which have said they want to do stuff about healthcare and healthcare costs, might be able to actually get any of this stuff done? 

Corlette: Well, I think you and I both, Julie, have been doing this work for long enough. It’s true, nothing is easy. But I will also say that if you look at the polling, Americans now rank healthcare costs higher than groceries and housing as their No. 1 cost concern. I, quite frankly, think that if you’re a politician and you’re not listening to that data and thinking about ways you can reduce costs for people, then you’re committing political malpractice. 

Rovner: We will see if any of this gets picked up. But thank you for doing the paper, Sabrina Corlette, and thank you for joining us. 

Corlette: Thank you for having me. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Anna, why don’t you go first this week? 

Edney: Sure. This is a story from a few of my colleagues: “.” And they took a look at some recently released data about prior authorizations and denials, and, essentially, you know, seeing how often people are able to overturn those when they try. Not a lot of people know that they can try to appeal that. And so I really encourage everybody to take a look at it. Check out where your insurer is. I think that that was interesting for me because, you know, they did it by insurer, so you can see what their stance is and how often they’re denying things. 

Rovner: Yeah, and that reminder that we always have with the “Bill of the Month.” It’s, like, don’t pay the first bill, and if you get a bill, don’t be afraid to appeal it. Tami. 

Luhby: My extra credit is a Washington Post story titled “,” by Erica Sloan. The story stood out to me, personally, because I was actually diagnosed with low ferritin 14 years ago, but it took time for the doctor to figure out why I was feeling so tired. So I, actually, I had blood tests, and then I actually went to a sleep doctor because I was figuring, Well, I must not be, you know, sleeping well at night. Maybe I have sleep apnea. But he actually asked to see the blood tests, and he was the one who pointed out my low ferritin levels. So, for those who don’t know, ferritin is a protein that stores iron in the body. And the story cautioned people — the ferritin face, I think, is what got, you know, is trying to get people into the story because apparently this is a thing, although I had not heard of it before this. 

Rovner: A thing on social media. 

Luhby: Yeah, a thing on social media, and I don’t think I actually ever had ferritin face. I asked my husband. But the story cautioned people from trying to diagnose themselves with iron deficiency based on social media and influencers. But the attention, they said, is raising awareness about iron deficiency, which is really important and which is the, you know, the step before anemia. So I thought the story was important because it highlights how common iron deficiency is — nearly one-third of U.S. adults are affected — but how, I was surprised, it’s not part of regular screenings. And the article goes on to explain how to test for iron deficiency, which is to check your ferritin level, and how to treat it, which is to eat more iron-rich food, like spinach, beans, red meat, fortified cereals — or, if your iron levels are very low, to take iron supplements, which I also personally know are not the most fun because they can cause GI [gastrointestinal] issues. So, and if you’re curious about what ferritin face is, which I was, is apparently it falls under the, you know, “looking tired” umbrella: a dull complexion, dry skin, cracked lips, under-eye circles. But, you know, I think those are symptoms of many things other than iron deficiencies. 

Rovner: And yet still news you can use. Alice. 

Luhby: Yes. 

Ollstein: I have a story from KFF [Health News]. It is by Ashley Mizuo, and it’s called “Indigenous Groups Are Exempt From Medicaid Work Rules, but Native Hawaiians Aren’t.” And it examines how, you know, lacking official federal recognition of your tribal status is making Indigenous Hawaiians, who are facing a lot of the same challenges as other Native groups in the mainland U.S., are not exempt from these new Medicaid work requirements that are starting on Jan. 1. And that could be a big barrier to care, and they already have a lot of barriers to care, including sometimes needing to travel from one island to another in order to access services. And so this could really prevent a lot of people who have a lot of health challenges from getting care they need. And so it, you know, looking at a sort of niche overlooked consequence of these new rules. 

Rovner: My extra credit is also about an overlooked consequence. It’s a local story from KJZZ Phoenix public radio called “,” by Camryn Sanchez. And in a situation reminiscent of people in Arkansas losing their Medicaid back in 2018 because the state couldn’t stand up a system allowing them to report their work hours, it seems Arizona can’t figure out how to keep eligible SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] beneficiaries on that program. Turns out that the state agency that runs the program reported that nearly 9 in 10 interviews with applicants were abandoned, dropped, or otherwise incomplete. The agency itself said it dropped more than 3 million calls due to call-center error or lack of call-center capacity. As a result of that, 53.7% of Arizonans attempting to recertify their food benefits were denied for failing to complete the interview. It is just a really wow story, and, you know, the point that, really, it is incumbent on the states to make these things available. That’s part of why they are supposed to be there. 

All right, that is this week’s show. Thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts — as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on X , or on Bluesky . Where are you guys hanging out on social media these days? Anna? 

Edney: on X or . Also on . 

Rovner: Alice? 

Ollstein: on Bluesky and on X. 

Rovner: Tami. 

Luhby: I’m just at these days. 

Rovner: That’s fine. We’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy. 

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. And, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Sept. 10, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Sandhya Raman of Bloomberg Law. 

Sandhya Raman: Hello, everyone. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: And my colleague Amanda Seitz of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. 

Amanda Seitz: Hi, great to be here. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with Lauren Sausser, who reported and wrote the latest Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News “Bill of the Month.” It’s about a breast cancer screening that’s not necessarily considered covered preventive care. But first, this week’s news. 

So, welcome to the sprint to the midterms. As we have talked about all year, affordability — or, to be more specific, unaffordability — is the topic that seems to be most on voters’ minds this fall. And healthcare is at or near the top of that list of things that voters are finding increasingly unaffordable. So the news from the past few weeks that healthcare costs are likely to go up even more next year, not only pushing up premiums but in many cases prompting employers to cut back on coverage, is probably not going to make consumers any happier. These are some of the steepest increases in healthcare costs that we’ve seen since the early 2000s —that’s when frustration prompted the debate that became the Affordable Care Act. What’s driving these increases, and what is it likely to lead to? 

Kenen: There’s multiple causes, right? We’re in an era — we’ve had high inflation overall. We … have had the number of insured people drop, which means there’s more uninsured, uncompensated care, which means the rest of us who do have insurance end up paying for it. Some people would argue that the consolidation — in fact, many people would argue — that the consolidation in the healthcare sector has added to costs. Private equity has been part of that consolidation, and their business model is, you know, there’s still research …  

Rovner: Their business model is to take money out of healthcare, basically. 

Kenen: And you know, I mean, some people would say that, you know, it’s not just profit; it’s also greed. That’s not true across the healthcare system. That’s not true about everybody. But I think you could see it. 

Rovner: It’s certainly a good place to make money these days. 

Seitz: I think, as far as what’s to come, too, Julie, we got a very significant signal this morning of how nervous the White House is about all of this. Axios is reporting that [President Donald] Trump wants to send $500 checks to a million enrollees across 30 states just ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections. So it just shows the timing here could not be worse. And that is kind of always the case when it comes to the election and open enrollment. But with those big increases we’re expecting, it’s only going to get worse in the coming weeks because people haven’t actually begun to preview those health insurance costs, what they’ll look like for next year. It’s not … it’s typically available around October for most employers and for the Medicare and ACA marketplace. So those prices are going to be landing in people’s inboxes and mailboxes right as they’re making choices about who they’re going to vote for, and it’s just not very good timing for this administration. 

Rovner: Darn that fall! Well, one of the things we’ve seen is it’s not just prices; employers are also dropping popular but expensive benefits like GLP-1 coverage or coverage for infertility treatment. Could that eventually drive prices down because providers of those benefits will have no choice if nobody has insurance for their products or services? Or are they just going to become unaffordable for all but the very rich in our K-shaped economy? 

Seitz: I think that’s certainly a concern, and again, going back to … this is just such a visible example of the affordability issue that people are talking about. People are paying more, and they’re getting less. And that is a frustration across our economy, but healthcare is such a blatant example of that happening. And there are questions: Will care be out of reach for people? I mean, we’re seeing that happen, obviously, in certain markets. In rural marketplaces, for example, it’s now, you know, in some places a luxury to have a doctor nearby that you can go to. So I certainly think that’s a concern. 

Kenen: I mean, it’s partly the way we’ve always measured prevention. It’s not that prevention doesn’t save money over the long haul. You know, there’s a lot of …. there’s dispute among the economists. There’s a lot of data that prevention in the long haul is a good investment, but that prevention isn’t, like, if I’m a health plan, I have no necessarily, you know, economic interest in making sure that you’re healthy in 20 years. You’re my client. You’re my customer now. Maybe next year. Maybe the year after that. So what’s good for the overall health system and the public’s health, and arguably the economy in the long term … it’s bad short term when, you know, an insurer, a company that decides not to cover GLP-1s. Although I sort of wonder if we’re going to get to the point where it’s just put in the water supply as more and more things are discovered about it. I’m being a little facetious, but only a little. … It’s a smart short-term sticker-price move. It’s not necessarily a wise move in the long run, and it’s going to get people mad because people who are, you know, who have struggled with weight, who’ve done the right things, and who still have trouble losing weight, or who have diabetes. I mean, I’m not sure if they’re dropping it for diabetes or they’re dropping it for obesity. I don’t know enough about it. 

Rovner: I think they’re mostly dropping it — yeah, I don’t think they can get away with dropping it for diabetes — I think they’re dropping it for weight loss. 

Kenen: Right. But I mean, as it becomes more restricted, but it’s turning out not to just be weight loss. I mean, it’s like people who get on it for weight loss are finding out that their livers get healthier. You know, there’s increasing research and causative signs about addiction. There’s, you know, it’s a really interesting drug, which we don’t totally understand. But it’s expensive, and that’s what, you know, people … the American healthcare system, or even the American business sector, isn’t always really thinking about the long term, particularly when the sticker shock is so big right now. 

Rovner: So another level of frustration — and something that we didn’t see the last time rising health costs were a top-tier political issue — is this whole trend of , or sometimes not-so-elective procedures, because so many patients now have multi-thousand-dollar deductibles, which we didn’t see the last time healthcare costs were spiking. That means many more patients could be blocked from getting needed care in the first place or, best-case scenario, fighting for months after that prepayment turned out to be too much. Ask me how I know about that latter part. I can’t help but think this is just going to increase the anger for voters. 

Raman: I mean, I really think so. We even, you know, last year I feel like there was so much outcry from folks when we were trying to see if Congress was going to extend the enhanced tax subsidies for the ACA. And, you know, all this talk about people maybe picking lower-tier plans because that is what they could afford. And I think we could see similar things now, where even if someone is still getting employer-sponsored insurance, maybe picking lower coverage than they want, not getting covered for as many things as they want. And, you know, feeding in with the prepayments, just so much more top of mind how much cost is going to be an issue in healthcare for folks. 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s one thing to have skin in the game. I say it’s another thing to have, you know, a limb in the game. Sorry, go ahead, Amanda. 

Seitz: Yeah, and I also think it will bring, that approach could backfire a little because it will bring a little bit more scrutiny to what providers are charging. A lot of times people get the bill after insurance has picked up a lot of the costs. Now you’re inviting them to look at it, you know, in advance and ask some questions that they might not have before afterwards. 

Rovner: Yeah. So what, if anything, are lawmakers proposing to do? Republicans seem to have retreated into the “let’s root out fraud” mode. President Trump is promising to send checks. Democrats seem to be proposing a lot of what I call “more of the same,” including rolling back the Republican cuts to the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid, and expanding Medicare benefits to things it doesn’t now cover, like dental and vision care. I feel like none of these things are really kind of meeting the moment of the intensity of the frustration. 

Seitz: I think it’s difficult to meet the moment in some ways because everyone knows that they won’t agree on anything. So, you know, it’s this sort of piecemealed approach of maybe what will stick, like trying to throw things at the wall and see what will stick. 

Kenen: There could be, like, a real bipartisan accord if, like, Trump agreed to put the $500 check into the mail-in ballot. [Hearty laughter] 

Rovner: Maybe you’re on to something, Joanne. 

Kenen: Probably not. Hypothetical. I think the one thing that, I mean, there’s a little bit of confounding is that people are upset about all prices, not just healthcare. There’s sort of an outrage, and not everybody is sick, and not everybody is, you know, facing a $10,000 prepayment. So it’s, I mean, I think people are aware and angry and angrier about healthcare, but it’s just sort of an affordability crisis, which healthcare is a component. And in some ways, it makes it easier for Congress to just sort of shout about it right now, before the elections. They’re really good at that, right? I mean, they’re all experts in shouting. 

Rovner: They’ve had lots of practice. 

Kenen: Yes, and, you know, I don’t really see … there’s going to be a fight on the left about single-payer, “Medicare for All,” but … I don’t think we yet know, outside of a couple of states, how … I haven’t really seen a unifying Democratic narrative on healthcare. You know, I see a fight about single-payer, but I don’t really see where they’re going. And … are they going to agree that the fight should be against the Republicans or against each other? That’s always a Democratic problem. Whereas the Republicans, I also don’t, you know, they tend to be, you know, more market-based, and they’re talking fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud. And, you know, there was just recently a big fraud bust on a Medicaid provider, not Medicaid beneficiaries. The way they talk about it, that can get confused. We all know there’s fraud. … Fraud is not the major driver of the healthcare costs in this country. But none of us would ever say there’s no fraud. There is. And we would all rather see less money spent on fraudsters and more money spent on making people healthy. But I think the Republicans right now are just going to keep shouting fraud. 

Rovner: Moving on, another trend we didn’t see as much in the early 2000s, when health prices were last spiking, was healthcare providers suing their patients over their unpaid bills. Our former podcast pal Sarah Kliff over at The New York Times has a really eye-popping story this week about how Kansas Republican Sen. Roger Marshall, who was an OB-GYN before being elected to Congress, and the headline tells you most of what you need to know: “ — a senator, I would add, who has voted to repeal both the Affordable Care Act and to cut Medicaid. I want to call this a scandal, but is it really? He’s not accused of doing anything illegal. His lawyers went after people who owed him money. Why has this story raised so very many eyebrows? 

Kenen: It’s an amazing story. You know, not only was he, and his response to these people … he wasn’t just, like, chasing them. They were arrested, and he was charging them 18% interest, and these people were, you know, most of them that we read about in that story were poor. So …  

Rovner: And some of them owed, like, $100! 

Kenen: Right. And it’s unclear whether they even knew they had court dates. And his response was just like, you know, a political one for the ages, which is … I think it was his spokesman, not him, saying, you know, he didn’t jail them, he didn’t issue the subpoenas and the warrants or whatever it was; the court did. But he brought the case, so it just doesn’t … is it going to, like, affect his eventual reelection? No, but is it just sort of, say, something’s really broken here? Yeah. 

Rovner: Yeah, and I mean, these weren’t people having tummy tucks. These were people who were delivering babies, in some cases, really difficult deliveries. 

Kenen: In one case, they had lost the babies. 

Rovner: That’s right. 

Kenen: Twins, I think it was twins. Yeah. 

Rovner: I think it was. Sandhya, sorry. 

Raman: There were two things that kind of, you know, caught my eye with this. A) is that, you know, doctors do have discretion in how they go after this issue. I mean, even if one is allowed to go after folks for this, they don’t have to. There are other options. But two, you know, I think one of the reasons this really resonates is that right now with Sen. Bill Cassidy, you know, losing his primary, not going to be in the Senate next year, Sen. Roger Marshall is probably one of the top contenders to lead the HELP [Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions] Committee, if Republicans maintain control of the Senate. So he’s going to have a lot of power over health policy and setting the agenda for what that committee does. And, you know, when so much of the conversation has been, like we talked about before, you know, affordability and things like that, I think that that has, you know, really struck a chord with some folks as well. 

Seitz: I also think that, you know, I did see some people saying, Listen, he is entitled. He did this work. He is entitled to get paid for it. And certainly, people might sympathize with that. But in this particular case, Sen. Marshall has leaned in to this idea that he was this upstanding community doctor who helped deliver babies of poor women on Medicaid. So when you’re a U.S. senator and you’re using that sort of imagery, but people have a completely opposite experience, it is fair game for them to speak out about that. 

Kenen: No, I mean it’s also, it’s true. Not all OBs take Medicaid. It’s a good thing that he took Medicaid. But in that bio, he left out that he was also, what, the co-owner of a hospital making millions of dollars. So, like, going after some — putting somebody in jail for two days over, you know, an obstetrics bill is probably something he’s going to have to discuss at home. 

Rovner: Well, while we are on the “Eyebrow-Raising Story” beat, The Wall Street Journal last week had a — he of the hoodies and shorts — apparently not being all that interested in “senatoring” these days. Among the anecdotes in the story, all of which were provided by former staffers, is one where he declined to meet with the folks from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, which is not just one of the top children’s hospitals in the country, it’s one of the top hospitals in the country. They wanted to talk about Medicaid cuts. He reportedly said he wasn’t worried about Medicaid cuts, and they were just looking for an excuse to visit Washington. In more than 40 years of covering healthcare in Congress, I cannot remember an elected official dissing a major hospital in their own district. Have any of you ever seen …?  

Kenen: Particularly a children’s hospital! 

Rovner: And yes, particularly a children’s hospital. I mean, this is just so out of the ordinary. It’s hard for me to express. 

Kenen: Yeah, but that’s his middle name now: “out of the ordinary.” 

Seitz: It also just shows, like, you know, there’s so much when you talk to voters, they talk about how their elected officials don’t really care about them. And that was so on display in this article. 

Rovner: And, I mean, is there something different about hospitals these days? I guess that’s sort of what, the other thing that made it jump out to me. I mean, hospitals are sort of increasingly the bad guys in raising … costs. It used to be … the Republicans are all going after the big, greedy insurance companies. We’ve seen studies recently that said it’s not the insurance companies who are making more money these days; it’s the hospitals that are making more money these days, and premiums are going up because hospitals are charging so much. I’m just wondering if hospitals are kind of losing their luster a little bit on Capitol Hill. 

Seitz: I think so, and I think part of that is the consolidation, right? You have, no longer do you have, in all cases, community hospitals that really run … where you have, like, this great relationship with your local doctor and everyone knows who’s providing their healthcare. it’s become more corporate, and I think that makes it an easier target for sure. 

Rovner: Well, finally, on the “Scandalous Story” beat this week, while we were gone, The Guardian and The Associated Press that contradict testimony that HHS [Health and Human Services] Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. gave to Congress when he denied that his 2019 trip to Samoa was related to vaccines. A letter he wrote to the Samoan prime minister before he went specifically said he wanted to study what happened with the MMR vaccine in the island nation, where two children died after receiving an improperly mixed version of the vaccine, and later a measles outbreak, after vaccinations declined, sickened thousands and killed 83 more people. In response to this story, Sen. Ron Wyden, who’s the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, has called for a criminal investigation into whether Kennedy lied to Congress. Of course, it seems unlikely that the current Justice Department would take up such a case. But if Democrats do take back the Senate, could they use this to try to oust the secretary? 

Raman: I think they could use it to bring him in. I mean, he wasn’t under oath when making these remarks about this during the hearing. But I think, I mean, that’s the main pull for Democrats in this presidency is if they do gain control of one or more chambers to be able to do more oversight on the things that they’re not getting answers to through other means. So I mean, we could see that … 

Rovner: I believe it is still a crime to lie to Congress, even if you’re not under oath. Just throwing that out there. 

Raman: I mean, I don’t know what they can do with this other than hold oversight, because I don’t see the DOJ or other enforcement kind of going after this. 

Rovner: Yeah. I guess I’m just wondering, I mean, of all the things that we know that Secretary Kennedy has not been completely truthful about, is this the one that they’re going to sort of want to run into the ground? 

Seitz: I totally agree. It might not. You know, there’s a lot of maybe half-truths that have been given at this point, and it’ll be interesting to see which ones the Democrats do go after, even if they do get power, which is very up in the air right now. 

Rovner: Right. 

Kenen: And there are rumors that Kennedy is — I mean, these rumors always happen at this time of year before an election — there’s, you know, rumors that he’ll be out anyway, but, you know, who knows? Because right now, you know, Trump seems to be embracing him again. There was some distance. Now there’s, you know, these things go up and down, and it’s not unique to Republicans. There are always rumors about Cabinet secretaries changing after the midterm, but this is sort of one of the ones that is circulating in D.C. that there could be a change. 

Rovner: No, we will see. All right. Speaking of HHS, Politico did a deep dive into what’s happened with personnel and has found that the number of political appointees in the agency has reached the highest level since the Clinton administration — even while career staffing has dropped by more than 20% — and that HHS actually now has the most non-Senate-confirmed political appointees in the federal government. That includes several departments that are far larger, like Defense. In some parts of HHS, even though hiring has resumed, those quitting still outnumber those coming in. And at the same time, agencies are failing to carry out policies and spend money appropriated by Congress. At some point, is Congress going to notice this and try to do something about it? I feel like I ask this question every single week. 

Seitz: I mean, this was such smart reporting because I think all of us have, at some point, been, like, you know, where’s this anti-vaccine ally of Kennedy’s? Why is he in this agency? So we’ve all noticed, like, this just influx of advisers — usually is how they label them. But in many ways, this wasn’t surprising. I mean, the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], FDA, NIH [National Institutes of Health], the career staffers have really been cut out of the decision-making on so many things, whether it be autism research, tobacco, vaccines, the MAHA Report that relied more on AI than any actual in-house expertise. So, you know, RFK has been very vocal on how much he does not trust the people working in these agencies. So, like I said, in many ways it’s not surprising, but it is certainly … shocking to see those sort of numbers. 

Rovner: Yeah, I found the numbers really — I mean, anecdotally, and we’ve been talking about this for months. I mean, you know, this agency or that agency where everybody has left, or — I forgot, there’s still, you know, thousands of people who are being paid and are on administrative leave and not working. I mean, particularly at the CDC, there’s entire offices of people, of career people, that are simply out in limbo while these, you know, political appointees are doing all the policymaking.  

Well, one thing that Congress has appeared to notice is an interagency agreement in which HHS would let the Department of Defense tap into billions of dollars appropriated to the NIH for the DOD to use to study military biodefense programs. The agreement was . It’s quite an eye-popping story. I will link to it. Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the ranking Democrats on the House and Senate Appropriations committees, are both furious. But it remains unclear what they can or will do. Is there anything they can do about this? I mean, it appears to be something that, you know, HHS has done with DOD, and it seems to be kind of a fait accompli. 

Raman: I mean, this whole situation has been kind of unusual. You know, we had the Democrats last week, you know, speaking out about how they’re very worried about this. We had the White House and the Republican leader of the House Appropriations Committee, you know, pushing back and saying that no money is changing hands and that it’s a partnership. And I think there’s still a lot of missing pieces that we’re still trying to figure out. I think a lot of groups have been trying to say, you know, are certain programs going to be cut to fund this, or there other things that are, you know, going to get de-emphasized, or is this just like a regular partnership? Because they do, you know, these two do work a lot on various biodefense issues over the years. That’s not unusual. I think one clue we might be able to look at is next week the Appropriations Committee is looking at the law that governs these interagency agreements, and so while it doesn’t explicitly say this agreement, I think that could come up a lot, and maybe, you know, pull out some leads in terms of what maybe is happening more here, and, you know, is money changing hands? Is it not? But that’s what I would kind of look to next. 

Rovner: Yeah, I do feel like Congress has sort of thrown up its hands about, Hey, we have the power of the purse, not you, administration. All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We’ll be right back. 

So, abortion is kind of receding as a leading issue for voters this fall, obviously in favor of affordability. But there’s some still pretty epic fights raging, particularly over the abortion pill mifepristone and whether it should remain available via telehealth. That’s a change made by the Food and Drug Administration during the Biden administration during the pandemic that was later made permanent. On Wednesday, a federal appeals court in New Orleans heard oral arguments in a case brought by Louisiana, charging that the FDA policy undermines its state’s ban and should be rolled back. Meanwhile, states where abortion remains legal argue that banning telehealth prescribing would violate their ability to make abortion available, which is what the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision said they should be able to do. Sandhya, you listened to the arguments; they were pretty arcane. What is this case going to turn on? 

Raman: So it was interesting, but I will agree with you that there was a lot of arcane legalese here. So, Louisiana, during their arguments, was asking the court to, you know, pause what the FDA has done, but also to pause that their own decision because the Supreme Court right now has put a pause on letting any of the regulation change while the litigation plays out. So a pause of a pause. And so there was a little bit of talk of, you know, what can we do here as a court and, you know, the authorities there. I thought what was, you know, pretty interesting was that, you know, the FDA didn’t really say a lot in responses to the judges. They basically just said that Louisiana didn’t have standing. They didn’t answer a lot of the questions asked of them. You could tell the judges were kind of frustrated about that. And, you know, I think a little bit is understandable. You know, we’re in this position where the FDA is defending an abortion policy put in place by the former Democratic administration. They’re in an unusual spot. We still have the, you know, review of mifepristone happening at FDA that could, you know, decide something on the safety. We don’t know yet, depending on what it is that they’re going to look for. But I think it’ll be interesting to see what they say, just because it seemed like the judges were frustrated with many responses from different people. But whatever outcome we get here will definitely be appealed by whoever to the Supreme Court. I mean, we’ve seen that with other cases; it’s almost, you know, guaranteed here. 

Rovner: And of course, we’re still waiting for that FDA study that they’ve been promising that we expect, I guess, after the midterms, conveniently, because the administration didn’t want to further inflame both sides before the midterms. 

Well, along these same lines, while we were on break, Senate HELP Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy, who’s a strong abortion opponent from Louisiana, released the result of an investigation by Republicans on his committee that criticized the FDA’s handling of mifepristone regulation. Will this investigation and report have any ongoing impact — given that this is also being played out in the courts, maybe in confirmation hearings for Heidi Overton, the current White House health aide who’s been nominated to head the FDA? 

Raman: I think it’ll definitely come up in her confirmation hearings. I’m not sure how much this specific report is going to play a huge difference, because, I mean, we’ve had over the last several months a lot of different Republicans going and asking FDA for specific things to speed up this review, to do it in the first place, to do specific things, and it doesn’t seem like that has moved the needle and changed much. You know, they’ve kind of stuck to whatever it is that they had in mind on that. So, I mean, it could be something that they cite, but I don’t know that it’s going to have a drastic effect when they already have that underway. 

Rovner: I’m interested. We’re seeing a whole bunch of hearings for Senate confirmations for HHS officials, but not yet for Heidi Overton, who’s been working in the White House as a health official. Amanda, do you expect that we’re going to see anything about her before the election, or maybe they’re going to try to hold it over? 

Seitz: Yeah, I heard some chatter that there might be a possibility, but then of course we got the notice for the deputy secretary and for the surgeon general, and not her yet. So we will see. I, you know, I think obviously the hearings next week will be far less controversial people, and I think that’s, you know, key right now. 

Rovner: Yeah, I should say that Chris Klomp, who’s … at CMS now, but who’s basically been acting as deputy secretary and has been nominated to be deputy secretary. I don’t think anybody expects there to be a whole lot of controversy associated with that one. 

Seitz: Though I will say it’ll be interesting to see. I mean, certainly he’s going to get questions about vaccines, and I’m very curious to see how he responds to that, as well as the surgeon general. You know, those are not normally questions that these folks are fielding, but they’re going to have to answer them, and it’s going to be really, like, telling how they walk that line. 

Kenen: Klomp is one of the probably least controversial people at HHS. People think, people in both parties and in the private sector and the health sector think he’s very competent, and that, you know, apparently he’s a — I don’t know him personally — but he’s apparently, you know, someone one can talk to. So I don’t think this is a fireworks-y thing, other than the mandatory, you know, both parties always want to score some points, and they will be point-scoring. But you know, he’s — I think there are a lot of Democrats who are actually pretty glad he’s there. 

Rovner: Yeah, I’ve met him. He’s very smooth, and I mean that in a good way. I don’t mean that in a slick way. I mean he’s just, he’s one of these people who clearly is good at his job. 

Well, meanwhile, still on reproductive health, our friends at ProPublica are reporting, using federal health statistics, that the , those that implant outside the uterus, has doubled since 2020 compared with the six years before. Some of that was likely due to the pandemic, when healthcare was harder to access. But the rate has continued to grow, and it’s grown much faster in states that have implemented abortion bans. Other ProPublica reporting has shown how women with pregnancy complications, like ectopic pregnancies, have had trouble getting care in states with bans. I guess at some level this shouldn’t be that surprising, but it still kind of jumped out at me. 

Seitz: It’s such important work because it’s been so hard to measure the impact of these bans. You know, we heard anecdotally over and over again from doctors how difficult it was to treat patients in these states. We obviously heard the horrific stories of women being turned away or dying in some cases. But a lot of people have sort of dismissed that and said, “Oh, you know, this was a bad doctor, or someone who wasn’t following the law or wasn’t reading it close enough, or a bad hospital attorney.” This gives us such a clear picture of how drastically the overturning of Roe v. Wade has been in raw numbers that you really can’t refute, and I thought that was very important. 

Kenen: This is the one, not the one thing, but this is one thing that there’s no debate about: An embryo cannot develop outside the womb. It cannot. It cannot. It can’t. I mean, it’s … it got lost, basically. I mean, I think I’ve mentioned before. … I have had an ectopic pregnancy. I’ve had a heterotopic pregnancy. And it’s nothing … you know, in my case, it was very much a planned, wanted baby, and it was very upsetting for me. But I was, I got treatment. But, you know, for people to mess around with this who don’t understand it, I mean, there was one lawmaker, and I forgot who it was, and I also forgot whether it was state or federal, who said, “Why can’t they just move it where it belongs?” You know, you can’t. I mean, trust me, I would have chosen that. … This is, like, it’s not abortion. This is just a medical problem that no baby is going to come out of an ectopic pregnancy, and a woman can die. So the fact that this is, like, still being — that women are dying is, like, if you’re pro-life, you’re supposed to care about life. And, you know, partly because of some misunderstandings, and partly because there’s some politics, and partly just because of some — you don’t know you have one. I mean, I didn’t know I had an ectopic pregnancy. And it just shouldn’t — women should not die in 2026 in the United States of America or anywhere else. This is not an abortion. 

Rovner: Even the anti-abortion movement makes the semantic case that treating ectopic pregnancies is — they don’t consider treating ectopic pregnancies an abortion. 

All right. Well, finally, this week, an update on the political fight over the measles outbreak in Pennsylvania, which has pitted HHS Secretary RFK Jr. against the state’s Democratic governor and possible presidential candidate, Josh Shapiro. The Lancaster County coroner has now reported to the CDC that the two measles-related deaths in the state in August were both infants, both from Amish families, but only one died “from” measles. (She puts in air quotes.) The other died “with” measles. I feel like we’re already back to covid. Does this actually make a difference? 

Kenen: It depends. Like, I thought, one of the best summaries of this case, and it was actually some of the facts that have come out in the public … Paul Offit had a very — from Children’s Hospital, speaking of Children’s Hospital … 

Rovner: Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, yes. 

Kenen: … and one of the leading vaccine researchers in the country, and someone who’s very good at explaining things. He had, like, a 10-paragraph … I think it was in MedPage, the other day … it was a little bit. … We’ve learned more about these cases since then, so I don’t know that he’s updated that. But the, you know, the basic idea was that in this “with measles,” in this particular case, might actually have been, like, without the measles, the baby might not have died, or the child might not have died. 

Rovner: This was a baby who died from a ruptured spleen. 

Kenen: And that the spleen could have been damaged because of the measles. And he didn’t say it’s definite. He said a number of tests needed to be performed to be sure one way or the other, and to the best of what had come out publicly before that, those tests had not … we didn’t know if those tests had been performed. So yes, it is possible that this was, the baby died because of the spleen damage, but that the spleen could have been because of the measles, and apparently we’re not really sure of it. But yeah, it matters because it’s part of the mix. You know, a baby died, a child died, a baby died, and getting in a fight about “with” doesn’t … it’s a risk factor. Period. 

Rovner: Well, one small silver lining: The Pennsylvania Department of Health says it has seen a surge in measles vaccines being given, nearly twice as many this August as is typical. Is that how this is going to go? People won’t get vaccinated until they see cases of the things they could have already been vaccinated to prevent? 

Seitz: It depends on who they trust, right? I mean, I think that is the unfortunate thing about this entire — I mean, there are so many unfortunate things about this entire case, and the first being that two babies are dead. But the other unfortunate thing is that people are now thoroughly confused, and it’s hard to discern, really, what happened. Even as a reporter who’s following this. Imagine being just, you know, a parent trying to decide what to do with your kid. So I think you’ll see some people that do go: OK, I don’t want to take this risk. I think you’ll see some that double down and go: You know, I’m not sure that the government’s being honest with me. And the nation’s health secretary also suggested that the Pennsylvania state government’s not being honest with me. So, unfortunately, I think we’re going to see all kinds of reactions to all of this. 

Rovner: And which government is not being honest with me — the federal government, or the state government, or the local government? Because now we’ve got the local coroner involved in this. So it’s, yeah, it is truly — I feel like this is a real microcosm of what’s going on with vaccines around the country. 

Kenen: In some ways it’s, what some people in public health would say, the best possible scenario is that people do wake up to the fact. Now we haven’t had a lot of measles for many years. We have now had more measles, and people are learning about the danger of measles, and maybe that will change behavior and reverse some of the anti-vaccination movement. On the other hand, you also have people saying that, not just in this case, but that it wasn’t measles that killed so-and-so. You know that there have been cases where someone died, but no, it wasn’t measles. You know, it was bad care. It was lack of vitamin A. It was, you know, malpractice. It was bad luck. It was something else, right? So you have sort of … you hear in public health is, like, Oh the tragedy is it’s going to take measles deaths for people to rediscover the importance of vaccine, and we may be seeing a little of that. But the other, the simultaneous narrative is, you know, it’s not measles that’s killing you; you don’t need the vaccine, that’s worse. So there’s … two narratives. Right now we see the, you know, the pro-vaccine may be inching up, but I don’t think we know yet where we’re going to be in a few more months. The, you know, there’s a lot of measles out there. 

Rovner: Yeah, clearly more of this to come. All right, that’s this week’s news, or at least as much as we have time for. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Lauren Sausser. Then we will come back with our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast my colleague Lauren Sausser, who reported and wrote the latest Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News “Bill of the Month.” Hi, Lauren. 

Lauren Sausser: Hi. 

Rovner: So this month’s patient was doing what just about every medical expert recommends: getting preventive screenings for breast cancer. Tell us who she is, what kind of medical care she got, and why she needed something extra. 

Sausser: OK. So, the patient this month, her name is Stephanie Halver. She lives in Washington state, and her primary care physician recommended that she get a breast MRI in addition to her annual mammogram because of her age, partly. Stephanie is over 40. She has dense breast tissue, and she also has a family history of breast cancer. Her mother and her aunt were both diagnosed in the past. 

Rovner: So she was at high risk, and her doctor recommended this MRI in addition to the regular mammogram, and her insurance company preapproved it. So, how was there a fight over the bill, and how big was the bill? 

Sausser: So, this actually took me a minute to figure this out. So, Stephanie had gotten a preapproval letter from her insurer before she went to schedule the MRI. But then, several months later, she got a bill, a significant bill for over $1,000, and she didn’t understand why this was not covered in the same way that her annual mammogram was covered. And to figure that out, we have to go back to the Affordable Care Act, which says that insurers have to cover some screenings, some cancer screenings, at zero cost to patients. Mammograms are in that list. Colonoscopies are in that list. Breast MRIs are not in that list. So the question is, who comes up with this list? It’s a group that you probably have heard of before, called the U.S. Preventive [Services] Task Force, which looks at all the available scientific evidence and uses a really rigorous process to figure out which screenings are best suited for the entire population. So, anyway, at this point in time, the U.S. Preventive [Services] Task Force — which, I should say, is not an active group of scientists since Kennedy disbanded the group essentially last year. 

Rovner: Yes, and we talk about this on the podcast all the time. 

Sausser: OK, so you all are up to speed about that. But as the current guidelines are written, breast MRIs — the group does not, has not found enough evidence that they’re necessary for a large group of people. Now, interestingly, I recently spoke to the former head of the task force, and he concedes that that does not mean that breast MRIs are not the right choice for some people. There’s this tension between, you know, what’s good for a population and what’s good for individual patients. In this case, Stephanie Halver’s primary care doctor appropriately recommended a breast MRI, but because breast MRIs are not included in the task force recommendations, her insurer does not have to cover that at zero cost. Now, as you mentioned, she had that preapproval letter, so why did she get the bill? Well, in this case, Stephanie had a really high deductible. It was over $5,000. That’s not super high anymore, but it was high. So in this case, the cost of the MRI was just applied toward her deductible. So she got a bill for it. If it had happened later in the calendar year and she’d met her deductible at that point, she might not have gotten a bill, or maybe wouldn’t have gotten a bill that was for essentially the full amount of the MRI. 

Rovner: So it was covered. It just wasn’t covered as a no-out-of-pocket-cost preventive service? 

Sausser: Exactly, exactly. 

Rovner: Now … we’ll add one more level of complication to this. I know in your research you discovered that some states are actually requiring breast MRIs to be covered in certain situations, and Washington is one of those states. So why wasn’t it covered for her? 

Sausser: So yeah, this added another level of complexity because when Stephanie was researching, you know, why, how did this bill happen? I live in Washington state. There’s a state law in Washington state that requires insurers to cover this procedure — or this test, I should say. Those state laws don’t regulate the type of insurance that she has. So a lot of people, like Stephanie, like you and me, get their health insurance through their employer. Those employer-sponsored plans are regulated federally through the Department of Labor, and so state laws generally don’t touch that type of insurance. Now, if Stephanie had had a federal marketplace plan or some other type of insurance, it’s possible that that state law would have applied. But in her case, because she had insurance through her job, that state law didn’t benefit her. 

Rovner: This is why we needed the Affordable Care Act in the first place because state laws don’t cover many — all of those employer plans that are federally regulated, which is most employer plans, although it’s not all. 

Sausser: Right, and it’s really, it’s confusing for people. … Insurance regulation is so piecemeal, and these self- —they’re also called these self-insured plans. If you work for a very large employer, chances are the plan is self-insured, and that means, at a very basic level, that the employer, not the insurance company, is actually the one that decides which benefits will be paid for and how they will be paid for, and, in this case, Stephanie did check with her HR [human resources] department, which confirmed that breast MRIs are not covered in the same way that mammograms are covered. 

Rovner: So, what’s the takeaway here? If you’re a patient and you find yourself in a similar situation, and your doctor recommends this care, I mean, is there a way to, like, save some money? 

Sausser: There is. One thing that you can do is shop around for the best price. So you’re going to pay more for a breast MRI probably through a hospital than you are through sort of a freestanding imaging center. The other thing that you might consider doing is, if you have a very high deductible — let’s say, you know, $10,000 or $20,000 — you might consider paying cash because you’re probably going to be quoted a lower cash price than if the provider bills the MRI through your insurance. The other thing is that you could consider scheduling this after you’ve met your deductible. So let’s say that Stephanie had decided to wait till the end of her plan’s calendar year, and she had met her deductible at that point. She probably wouldn’t have had to pay very much for this MRI. There are also advocacy groups that can help patients who are struggling to pay the bill, find a lower-cost alternative. There are programs through Medicaid that help patients get screened. The takeaway, to answer your question, is don’t ignore your doctor’s recommendation. If you need a breast MRI, there are probably ways to lower your cost if you know going into it that you may be on the hook for all or part of the bill. 

Rovner: Well, as always, it’s buyer beware in the healthcare marketplace. Lauren Sausser, thank you very much. 

Sausser: Of course. Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We’ll post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Sandhya, why don’t you go first this week? 

Raman: So my extra credit this week is called “.” It’s from my colleagues at Bloomberg Government, Erin Durkin and Claire Hebert. So something some folks might not know is that Medicaid is a significant funding source for special-needs services in K through 12 public schools. And so they took a look at Indiana, which has, you know, been aggressively cutting Medicaid enrollment, seeing some of the biggest drops in child health insurance compared to other states, and just looking at some of the effects there, you know, in part by the tax law that Republicans passed last year, and just Indiana laws that also made similar changes. So it’s a good deep dive into this. 

Rovner: It is. Joanne. 

Kenen: This is a story from ProPublica in collaboration with the Oregon paper, The Oregonian, I believe it was: “.” It’s by Audrey Dutton. It’s about Idaho, which is, there’s a community that’s been there for, like, 100 years that did not believe in medical intervention. They believe that if a baby is dying, then that’s, you know, what God wanted. It is not … there’s an astonishing, a disturbing number of cases. They are under Iowa state, excuse me, Idaho state law. They are not prosecuted. They are under state law. They are allowed to let their children die. And there are some voices in that story about the police who have to go and how disturbing it is for them, and that ProPublic also had a retired pediatrician review the medical records. Many, many of these are avoidable deaths — something that would have responded to antibiotics. Something that would have, you know, simple, not terribly invasive surgery. There was a quote from a midwife that really stuck with me, talking about watching a child die, and she said, “It’s not pretty. They don’t just close their eyes.” It’s a very, very powerful story. 

Rovner: Amanda. 

Seitz: Yeah, I have two extra credits this week, but they both touch on the same topic. The first is “,” by Daniel Payne at Stat News. This story looks at how, ahead of all these Medicaid cuts, rural hospitals are sort of clinging on for dear life by getting the backing of a larger hospital system. They’re often out of town, and, actually, one of the hospitals my own mom works at, so that was kind of cool. But the article does a great job of raising the balance here — that while this approach is saving hospitals from closing, it changes the care that people are getting, and it could make it more expensive. And then my second article is by our Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleagues Noam [N.] Levy and Hannah Norman. They published an article: A NY Hospital Tried To Close Its Birthing Center. This City United To Fight Back.” That looks at how this hospital in a small town of Troy, New York, was instructed to close its birthing center by the multibillion-dollar health system that’s out of town that it’s owned by. And there was this sort of herculean, bipartisan pushback over the proposed closure that stretched from, like, the local city to the state. Both of these articles just do a really great job, I thought, of showing the local impact of hospital consolidation and corporatization of those systems. 

Rovner: Well, my extra credit this week is from NBC News. It’s part of its “Disabled and Denied” series called “,” by Mike Hixenbaugh. And it’s about a new AI program being used in Nebraska. I guess we’re all looking at different states this week. And this program is being used in other states, too, to help determine how much Medicaid funding should be allocated to those living with disabilities — which sounds fine until he discovered that the algorithm basically penalizes families who’ve managed to care for their disabled loved ones at home. Because they’ve never been institutionalized, they’re suddenly deemed more able than they actually are, and funding that’s been allowing them to live is being cut dramatically. In one case, parents in their 70s caring for a pair of severely disabled sons in their 40s are facing a loss of more than $200,000 in Medicaid funding. That’s jeopardizing their ability to continue to keep their sons at home. The entire story is pretty wrenching. I really can’t recommend it strongly enough. 

OK, that is this week’s show. Thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer this week, Taylor Cook. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts — as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. 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 these days , or on Bluesky . Where are you guys hanging on the socials, as they say? Amanda. 

Seitz: I am also on X . 

Rovner: Joanne? 

Kenen: I’m mostly on and . 

Rovner: Sandhya. 

Raman: I’m on and on @SandhyaWrites. 

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

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. And, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Aug. 27, at 10:30 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go.  

Today we are joined via video conference by Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times. 

Margot Sanger-Katz: Hello, everybody. 

Rovner: Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello! 

Rovner: And Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post. 

Rachel Roubein: Hi. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with Dean Rosen about his time working for Kansas Republican Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum, who died last week at the age of 94, and how she represented a type of lawmaker we don’t see that much anymore. But first, this week’s news. So we’re taking the next week off for a needed break for our entire team, which makes this the last podcast of the technical summer. And I thought I’d do something just a little bit different. I’m going to break the discussion up into what I’m calling “The Themes of the Summer” — things we’ve talked about nearly every week. I hope it gives some of you the realization that I get from putting this together every week, that we’re looking less at a long list of separate events and items and more at pieces of a much larger picture that we don’t often see. 

So, theme No. 1 this week is declining health coverage. When Republicans passed their big budget bill last summer, they thought they were being clever by backdating most of the Medicaid cuts so they wouldn’t happen before the 2026 midterms. Well, the problem for them is that states and health systems are already making their own cuts in anticipation of those federal cuts to come, and people are already starting to feel them. This week’s evidence is from a Stat News piece called “,” and it includes ways that access is shrinking overall, particularly in heavily rural states like Maine and Louisiana, as the number of people without insurance goes up and the money from the government goes down. Is it really possible that Republicans didn’t see this coming? Or did they really believe they could take a trillion dollars out of the nation’s healthcare system and not have people notice? 

Sanger-Katz: I think that many of them were not paying very close attention. I think it may be accurate to say that they were indifferent to this possibility and are, in fact, surprised now to see the way that it is working out. I just, you know, for context, this bill that made these very large cuts to Medicaid and some smaller cuts to Obamacare funding was part of this huge package that included, you know, major tax cuts and tax reforms that were a big priority for Republicans, changes to energy policy, changes to other social welfare programs, changes to education policy, and, you know, they called it the One Big Beautiful Bill. And I think the bigness of it is easy to forget, in retrospect. But I think for a lot of lawmakers, they were really focused on the parts of the bill that they really cared about. For many of them, it was the tax part of the package. And the president and their leadership repeatedly told them not to worry about the Medicaid changes, characterized them as not being cuts. And I think, you know, a good, responsible lawmaker ought to do some diligence about that. But I think that many of them maybe took their eye off of the healthcare parts of the bill, were focused more on these other parts of the bill, and now are really starting to see what is happening in their home states as these policies are starting to roll out. 

Roubein: And I also think it’s true that, like, some of the full impacts, as I think Daniel Payne pointed out in his Stat piece, won’t be felt for years to come, particularly as the Medicaid work requirements do kick in next year. So once there are more concrete human faces and examples, that tends to come to more the forefront and, like, you know, the political mind. So yes, those changes a lot of them are not fully going into effect till after the midterms. 

Rovner: I do think that one thing that lawmakers really didn’t appreciate was how much this might impact not just people who would be losing coverage, but people who would be losing access. I mean, people who still have coverage, but, you know, if a hospital can’t keep its door open, or a clinic can’t keep its door open, or a doctor can’t, you know, keep the practice going, that’s going to impact people with insurance as well as people who are losing their insurance. I mean, that’s, I think, that’s part of why this piece went to explore some of these more rural places, where people are going to feel this first. Shefali, I see you nodding. 

Luthra: Yeah, one thing I’ve been thinking about a lot is you do hear Republicans, especially someone like [Maine Sen.] Susan Collins, really trying to tout the rural health fund that was part of this, right, and that was meant to, at least rhetorically, offset these massive healthcare cuts. Obviously, you look at math, you look at numbers, and one doesn’t really undo the other. But …  

Rovner: Yeah, the rural health fund is, what, $150 billion of $1 trillion … ? 

Sanger-Katz: $50 billion, I think. 

Rovner: Or, oh, it was even less. 

Luthra: And so, yeah. I mean, I think what maybe people didn’t fully appreciate is that voters are less compelled, perhaps, by [lawmakers] saying I voted for this funding, and more compelled by what they see happening around them, which is these massive cuts resulting in major changes to what is often the biggest employer, what is often the only source of healthcare for miles, something that is very intimate, very much of the community. And that’s why this is just such a potent issue, especially in a lot of these really close Senate races now. 

Roubein: I mean, we’ve seen in the past how rural healthcare can impact politics. With Medicaid expansion, Republicans were really, really, really against it, and then you saw some begin to change their mind — North Carolina being a notable example, and just all of the ballot measures in red states — Oklahoma, for instance. 

Rovner: Idaho. 

Sanger-Katz: I think it’s worth just pointing out how much is still to come. I think a lot of what we’re seeing right now is hospitals and other healthcare organizations that were kind of in a difficult financial situation going into this change in policy. They’re looking around, they’re already in the red, and they see they’re not going to get more money in the future; they’re going to get less money. And so I think a lot of them are accelerating changes that they were hoping to stave off. But the real cuts in almost all cases have not come yet. So, you know, the work requirements, as Rachel noted, are going to reduce the number of people who are covered by Medicaid. So that means that a lot of these healthcare organizations are going to have to absorb uncompensated care that was previously paid for. But then, further down the road, there are actually much larger cuts that are coming to state Medicaid budgets that are done in these kind of complicated, a little bit obscure, formulaic ways. But there are these reductions on how much the state can directly pay hospitals for care. There are reductions in how much states can raise through Medicaid taxes that then get transferred back. And there, I think, have been very valid criticisms of these funding mechanisms for Medicaid. They are this kind of Rube Goldberg complicated ways of financing the program, but they’ve been around for decades, and these healthcare organizations and these state budgets have really been built on the foundation of these funding streams. And so, as that money starts to go away, I think, then we may see even larger impacts because, again, the things that are happening now are healthcare organizations looking down the road and thinking, Ooh, it’s going to get messy. Maybe I should start adjusting now. But down the road, it will start getting messy for them, and I think there are going to be potentially some much harder choices for some of these organizations. 

Rovner: Well, continuing along that theme, , we talked earlier this summer about a new rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to enforce the administration’s ban on the use of the Medicaid or CHIP [Children’s Health Insurance] Program to pay for gender-affirming care for minors. But it seems that the mechanism CMS is using could open the door to denying coverage for other drugs too, or at least some uses of other drugs. Now, this isn’t in the Stat story, but, Shefali, when I read it, I wondered if one goal here is to cut back on the use of drugs like misoprostol, which is used for a lot of things, but also for medication abortion. 

Luthra: That’s a really good question, and I think one that we still don’t really know. And obviously, a lot of states’ Medicaid doesn’t cover abortion to begin with. That really only happens in states that have actively made an effort. But, I mean, misoprostol is not only used for abortion; it is used for miscarriage management. And I think it’s just something really important for us to keep in mind what happens when you see these sorts of approaches to just, like, carving out individual forms of healthcare. And obviously, it’s very interesting as well because drugs used for gender-affirming care are also used for other things. RFK [Robert F. Kennedy] Jr. really loves hormone therapy for many people, just not trans people. And so I think there’s just a lot of questions that we don’t really have answers to about just how sweeping the implications of something like this could be. 

Rovner: Yeah, we will see as it goes. Well, it’s not just Medicaid. that CMS is clawing back billions of dollars in Affordable Care Act premium subsidies from insurers who have allegedly phantom enrollees, people with zero premium plans who don’t file claims. And while that is a known problem, a lot of those people might be actual enrollees who just haven’t needed their insurance yet, as in young, healthy folks who have health insurance just in case, or because their parents told them that they should, and, by the way, they could get a plan with a zero premium. And stripping these people from the rolls is likely to boost premiums overall by making risk pools sicker, in general. I feel like this administration might not be familiar with the bizarre and sometimes illogical way the health insurance market works? 

Sanger-Katz: I think there’s a delicate balance going on here, where if there are people who are enrolled in these plans who are fake, are not real people, do not know that they have insurance, never plan to use their insurance, you know, that is a waste of federal dollars to subsidize those premiums and just give that money to insurance companies. But I don’t think that there’s very strong evidence that there are a lot of these people. And I also think that the mere fact that someone has not used their health insurance yet, in a year, is not by itself evidence that they are a fake person or that their enrollment is fraudulent. As you said, Julie, there are a lot of reasons why people in this market may not have used their insurance. You know, a lot of the people who have become newly enrolled are relatively young and healthy. That is good for the risk pool, but it may mean they don’t have a lot of healthcare needs. There’s also, just because of the nature of the individual market, you know, one expert pointed out to me, there’s just a lot of churn. You know, someone loses their job, they sign up for a plan, then they get a different plan, or, you know, people who are in this market may only be in this market for a short period of time, and that may also explain why there’s a higher share of them who don’t make any claims, because they haven’t sort of gotten through the whole year, they haven’t had a healthcare need yet. So I think deciding to just disenroll people on this basis does risk disenrolling people who are legitimately insured, who are not phantoms, and who are not committing any kind of fraud. To the degree that there is fraudulent enrollment, and I think there’s evidence that there’s some of it, there are, you know, I think that is a valid concern, and I think the federal government is certainly within its rights to try to address that and make sure that these federal tax subsidies are being appropriately spent. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think “delicate balance” is exactly the right word. I mean, that’s, you know, with the work requirements too. I mean, the idea is to make sure that people are doing things. But if you make the administrative requirements so burdensome, then you’re going to throw off people who are legitimately enrolled. 

Moving on to the next theme of the summer: the resurgence of measles, and the continuing fight over vaccine policy. Until this week, the Trump administration had boasted that while measles cases have been rising pretty precipitously — they’re at the highest level in more than three decades — the U.S. was actually doing better than most other countries with outbreaks, and besides, no one had died of measles yet this year. Well, that worked until Tuesday, when the Pennsylvania Department of Health announced two measles-related deaths in Lancaster County — although we have few details other than that both people were unvaccinated and one was an infant. The announcement touched off a rather nasty war of words between Pennsylvania governor (and possible 2028 presidential candidate) Democrat Josh Shapiro and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who said that the state was not cooperating with federal health officials, and maybe the people didn’t actually die of measles after all. This isn’t really going to get more people vaccinated, I would suggest — this just sort of fighting back and forth, right? 

Luthra: It’s a good question. It certainly doesn’t help. I think one thing I was thinking about this morning, and this is not measles-specific, but there’s a really great New Yorker piece from this week looking at the actual vaccine data over the past year and a half, and obviously people are affected by public rhetoric, but the declines in vaccination are not as big as one might have feared when RFK Jr. was initially nominated and really made a point of highlighting anti-vaccine beliefs. And so obviously, like, this is, the fact that people are dying is very bad. The fact that they’re sowing confusion … 

Rovner: The fact that people are getting measles is very bad! 

Luthra: Yes, it’s very, very bad. It’s not, none of it is good. But that was actually really striking to me that amidst all of this, like, really terrible news, there is a bright spot, which is that things could be a lot worse. That is something that I hadn’t thought about. 

Roubein: I mean, if, I think … I’ve been thinking about this today, like, if you kind of step back from the really high-level view, I think Americans who are watching this are confused. They are not sure who to trust. There are, you know, Republicans are saying one thing, Kennedy allies are saying one thing, the Department of Health [and Human Services] and Gov. Shapiro, Democrats are saying another thing. You’re seeing a, you know, a war of words between, like, Republican and Democratic county commissioners on this, you know, just from a public health messaging standpoint. 

Rovner: Yeah, it has not been a great job of communication all the way around. I think there, I mean, there are even, you know, public health defenders who are saying, Why don’t we know more about these two deaths yet? There’s been not a lot of information, and that has, of course, as we saw, you know, during covid, the more noninformation you have, the more people try to fill in their own information, whether it’s true or not.  

Well, even before the Pennsylvania news, we had a somewhat excruciating pair of appearances on CBS’ Sunday show Face the Nation this week. First, CMS Administrator Dr. [Mehmet] Oz needed three separate tries to be able to say that, no, President [Donald] Trump was incorrect when he said in his Oval Office vaccine event that the measles, mumps, rubella combination shot was lethal. Spoiler: It is not. Then Florida Republican congressman Byron Donalds, who’s now the Republican candidate for governor, said the measles outbreak there has been caused by illegal immigration rather than residents not getting their children vaccinated. What happened to the idea we heard last winter that being anti-vax wasn’t good politics? I think this speaks to what you were just saying, Shefali. You know, I think in January and February we thought that Republicans were going to sort of leave this alone and focus on other things. 

Sanger-Katz: Well, I think one thing that we’ve learned recently is that while a lot of the president’s advisers and political staff, I think, were concerned that an anti-vaccine message was damaging, what we’ve seen is that the president himself sincerely has anti-vaccine views and has been saying them out in public. And so I think it does put other Republican political figures in a difficult bind, and certainly puts folks like Dr. Oz, who work in the administration, in a difficult place. Whatever his genuine views are, whatever his political advisers and his public health advisers are telling him, he works for President Trump, and President Trump has made it pretty clear what he thinks. And so I think that’s why we are now seeing this kind of new round of muddled messaging around vaccines, when I do think for a little while there was kind of a pullback on the most overt anti-vaccine rhetoric, and, you know, we saw RFK talking less about it, for example, in public. Now, I think we’re in a little bit of a new phase, where the president is leading the way back. 

Roubein: Yeah, I mean, I think that’s exactly right, and I mean, Trump has, you know, privately questioned why his administration had yet to release new vaccine recommendations, , with Lena [H. Sun] and my colleague Dan [Diamond]. And that’s, you know, some of what, a lot of what drove the executive order that we saw from just a few weeks ago to reduce the childhood vaccine schedule. Trump says he wants to break up the MMR shot. That’s not something that is currently available, but, you know, he has driven that by pushing some of his advisers. 

Rovner: Yeah, absolutely. Well, meanwhile, demonstrating just how expensive it is to track, trace, and quarantine people after a confirmed case of measles. One Denver outbreak that ended up being just 10 cases still cost state and local agencies nearly a half a million dollars, almost 7,000 hours of work from 189 staff members, not to mention 91 people being quarantined and 500 days of school being missed. We may call public health invisible when it works, but it is certainly not cheap. 

Roubein: Yeah, I mean we don’t talk about the economics of it very often. I mean, public health officials always say that they are underfunded, but just, in general, the talk of the economics here is generally not a huge part of the conversation. 

Sanger-Katz: And measles is just such a difficult disease to contain because it is so contagious. It is one of the most contagious infectious diseases out there. And so that means that any person who has measles just has the potential to spread it to so many people. And I think that really strains these traditional public health approaches of trying to track, trace, and quarantine because you have to find so many contacts. 

Rovner: Yeah, just a reminder, I mean, measles can linger in the air after the infected person has left for, I think it’s like, two hours. So it’s, you know, anybody who’s been in a place where somebody with measles has been is potentially at risk if they’re not vaccinated. 

Sanger-Katz: I mean, we remember how hard this was with covid. Of course, in the early days, no one was vaccinated, so there were more people who were susceptible to covid. But measles is substantially more contagious even than covid. 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, as yet, as the debate continues to rage over vaccines, the evidence continues to pile up that vaccines are actually, on balance, a very good thing. Just this week, we have two more studies. of 4 million teens and young adults that found that those who received that controversial mRNA-based covid vaccine were less likely than those who just got covid to develop myocarditis or other heart problems. That was something that people were worried about with young people getting this vaccine. appears to confirm that the shingles vaccine, Shingrix, appears to not only have a protective effect against dementia, something we reported earlier this year, but also against cardiovascular disease. How do we get to a place where vaccines have become controversial again? I assume, I mean, I want to go back, Margot, to what you were saying that it does seem that President Trump himself has anti-vax views that I think we didn’t appreciate until this year. I mean, I think most of us thought that this was all being driven by RFK Jr., who’d obviously made a career of being anti-vax. But when he backed off, we saw the president basically fill right in, and that’s kind of where we are? 

Sanger-Katz: And I also think this is a reminder to us, both of these studies and others that have come out recently, that, you know, vaccines have some risks. They do. But infectious disease can be really dangerous for people, and it can have lingering and downstream effects that are not obvious. It’s not just that you get sick in the moment that you get sick, but having that disease affects your body in ways that may show up much later. And I think some of these longer-term studies that are following people — you know, not just in the weeks and months after they get a vaccine, but what happens years later to their heart or to other major organ systems —really shows that preventing people from getting serious illness is good for their long-term health. 

Rovner: Yeah. 

Roubein: And I mean, Secretary Kennedy, just to go back to last year, he did drive changes. He fired CDC’s [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s] vaccine advisers, who had made changes to vaccines. The health department did release a new childhood, slimmed-down childhood immunization schedule earlier this year. A lot of those changes, though, have been on hold from a federal judge. 

Rovner: Yeah, he also fired the head of the CDC, who refused to rubber-stamp his vaccine changes. So, he was busy before he got sort of unbusy with this. All right, we are going to take a quick break. We will be right back. 

OK, our next theme of the summer are the continued cutbacks by the Trump administration to federal health programs, including some of those that have been specifically funded by Congress. First up is a story from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News this week about how, at the same time President Trump can’t stop talking about the increasing rates of autism and what a problem it is, the administration is scaling back enforcement of civil rights protections for people with autism, research into the education needs of people with all sorts of disabilities, and even data collection efforts. So, on the one hand, the president keeps pressuring RFK Jr. to find a definite cause of autism, but at the same time, this administration is doing less to help those who are already diagnosed? 

Luthra: I think what I find really interesting every time we talk about this is the really, really long tail of funding cuts, because this is something on, like, a broad macro scale that began at the beginning of this administration, right? Just massive funding cuts and freezes across the board and have continued. And because of the way grant-making works, because of the way research works, we keep seeing the consequences. We keep getting more people reporting, “Oh, my funding didn’t come,” or “This was held up,” or “This project I was working on no longer can.” And what I think is also really interesting is we see how slow the ability to respond is because of the long tail of funding cuts. I mean, courts take a long time, finding new funding when you suddenly lose yours actually is very difficult. And this is something that we’re just going to keep coming back to. We are going to be seeing the consequences of these funding cuts for months and years, as we’ve been talking, but also for much longer as the consequences in terms of research, of cures developed or not developed, becomes even more clear. 

Rovner: Yeah, although sometimes I think it’s going to be hard to connect the dots to get from, you know, from you cut this so this didn’t happen. It’s almost going to be like proving a negative at some point. 

Well, another big theme this summer has been drug prices, particularly prices for those expensive GLP-1 weight loss drugs. As part of the administration’s push to make those drugs less expensive for the end users, CMS offered states the option to participate in its direct negotiations with the drug manufacturers if they would offer them through their Medicaid programs. Only, , so far only one state has taken up the offer, and more states are actually cutting back on their GLP-1 coverage through Medicaid that they have been offering because it’s been such a financial strain on their programs. Several state officials told Politico that they worry about the long-term financial sustainability of the program. I know it’s also a worry for the Medicare GLP-1 program, which is basically at this point a year-and-a-half-long pilot for drugs that, as far as we know, need to be taken indefinitely. Is it fair to say that the president has not really been able to keep his promise to make these drugs cheaper and much more widely available, or that if he has, people may end up getting them yanked out from underneath of them? 

Sanger-Katz: I think it’s complicated. I think it’s hard to know how much credit the president should get. But I will say that the prices for these drugs — the kind of cash-pay prices, that he was able to negotiate allegedly, and that he was able to announce certainly a few months ago — were substantially lower than what individuals and insurers, including some public insurers, were paying for those drugs. So we are now seeing a kind of cash price for the main anti-obesity drugs that is much more affordable than it had been in the past. I think some of that was driven by market pressures and would have happened regardless of the president’s intervention. But I think certainly his pushing these companies, his threatening of these companies, his cajoling of these companies probably maybe did induce them to sort of do it at the same time, to do it faster, and to do it more prominently. 

Rovner: Well, some of it already had happened, before he got in. The self-pay cost had already gone down because so many insurers had stopped covering it. 

Sanger-Katz: It had gone down, but it then went down again.  

Rovner: It did. 

Sanger-Katz: The prices that are available now that the president announced are lower than what we had seen in the past, and they are a major discount even compared to the previously lowered prices that had been public. So I think that is a real thing. Whether or not those prices were meaningfully lower than the price that the Medicaid programs in states were already paying is a little bit of an unanswered question. But my understanding from talking to some Medicaid officials is that Medicaid was already getting very similar prices, even before the president announced these discounts. And that’s because Medicaid has, by law, gets the best price for drugs. They get discounts that are not available to other purchasers. And Medicaid budgets are quite tight. You know, as we were just discussing, all of these state Medicaid programs are facing very substantial cuts that are coming down as the rollout of the big tax-and-spending bill is implemented. And the states that went early and did cover GLP-1 drugs for obesity, I think that they saw that interest and uptake really exceeded their expectations. There were a lot of people in the Medicaid population who stood to benefit from these drugs, and that when so many of them enrolled at once and started taking these drugs at once, it did create, I think, an unanticipated budget strain. So I think states are in a difficult position. This pilot is offering them this cash price for their Medicaid programs, and I think a lot of them are looking at that, and they’re saying, “Well, this is, like, a good price. It’s not that much better than what we could have gotten before, and we weren’t doing it before because we didn’t think that we could afford it.” And so I think those circumstances really haven’t changed. It will be interesting to see what happens over time. It does seem like there is huge potential public health benefit for Medicaid populations if these programs can find a way to cover these drugs. You know, the evidence about the health benefits of these drugs for people who have obesity are just really tremendous, and we’re seeing them over numerous, different health conditions and body systems. And, you know, in my own reporting on North Carolina’s Medicaid program, which was one of the early ones to cover these drugs, you know, I just talked to a lot of people who were really excited about having this opportunity to take this drug. People who had really struggled with their weight and related illnesses, and, you know, were glad that the state was offering it to them. And now, you know, North Carolina has had, is one of the states that’s had to roll back. 

Rovner: Yep. All right. Well, finally, this week, a word about Dolly Parton, possibly the only person in America who was pretty literally loved by everyone. The country and pop music superstar and actress who was known for her genuine kindness and generosity was, in fact, also an important healthcare philanthropist. A lot of people probably remember she gave a million dollars to Vanderbilt University in 2020 to help develop the aforementioned mRNA-based covid vaccine. What people might not remember is that she also used her own money to fund pediatric infectious disease research, underwrite a women’s healthcare center in the East Tennessee county where she was raised, and help train pediatric health professionals. There are celebrities who lend their name and their time and sometimes their money to causes to help burnish their personal PR, and then there are those who clearly do it because they want to give back. I think it’s fair to say that Dolly Parton was one of the latter, and I think she’s going to really be remembered for a lot of the work that she did on bringing healthcare to more people, right? 

Luthra: Yeah, yeah. It’s very sad. 

Rovner: It is. And healthcare owes her a debt. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we’ll play my interview with Dean Rosen, and we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast Dean Rosen. Dean is a partner at Mehlman Consulting, where he landed after a long career on both sides of Capitol Hill, during which he helped shape some of the most important health legislation of the 1990s and early 2000s, including President George W. Bush’s HIV/AIDS program, PEPFAR; the Medicare prescription drug law; and the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. But before all those things, Dean was the top health aide to Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum, the Kansas Republican who passed away last week at the age of 94. After Republicans took over Congress in the wave election of 1994, Kassebaum chaired the then-Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, now the HELP [Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions] Committee, and stewarded the surprisingly difficult path to law of what was originally a very bipartisan bill, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA. Dean Rosen, welcome. 

Dean Rosen: Thanks, Julie. I’m honored to be here, and I’m a longtime fan of What the Health? — so this is a real great opportunity. Excited to be with you. 

Rovner: Great. So, HIPAA, which was known at the time as Kassebaum-Kennedy for its bipartisan Senate sponsors — your boss and the late Edward M. Kennedy, a Democrat of Massachusetts — is today mostly known for its medical records confidentiality provisions. But that’s not how it started out, right? It was really an effort to do something bipartisan in the wake of the failed Bill Clinton very partisan health plan. Talk about how it kind of came to be. 

Rosen: Yeah, that’s exactly right. It sort of started in the Senate and then moved to the House and then moved to a traditional conference committee, which we don’t seem to do very much of, either, anymore these days. But when it started off, it really did start, as you said, as a health insurance portability bill, and just a really, in some ways, minimalist solutions-oriented legislative proposal that was designed to try to get at what was really, I think, the core concern, or one of the core concerns, at the time, which was people’s ability to get and maintain health insurance if they had preexisting conditions.  

And really what happened was the Clinton plan had kind of imploded spectacularly, as you know, despite the fact that there were huge Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate — not filibuster-proof, but close in the Senate — and the Democrats just couldn’t … get it done. And they couldn’t get any Republican support. They couldn’t get enough Democratic support. And then in the 1994 election, something unexpected happened. I guess polling was a little less sophisticated at the time, but you had the “Republican Revolution” led by [who] was to be Speaker [Newt] Gingrich in the House, and you had the Senate — which had changed hands before, but the House, which had not changed hands and had been in Democratic control for 40 years — switch, and Republicans were ascendant. Bill Clinton was still president. I think probably some of the fact that there was such a gain of seats had something to do with the failure of health reform. And Republicans were getting ready to move a very aggressive deregulatory agenda. And Ted Kennedy, who was a liberal lion of the Senate, who you know was a champion of universal coverage and other liberal causes, moved from the majority side of the dais and having the gavel at the Senate Labor Committee, now the HELP Committee, to the minority side. And Sen. Kassebaum, who had hired me just a few months before that, all of a sudden became the first woman to chair a major committee in the Senate, a standing committee in the Senate. And really, what started it, was that Sen. Kennedy and his team came over and met with us, and somewhat surprisingly, said, “Hey, I know I’m for universal coverage, but I’m willing to do something that’s much more modest,” and shared with Sen. Kassebaum and me and the team a chart that they had put together showing where, not had there been disagreement, but where actually there had been agreement among the major plans, ranging from the most liberal, the Clinton plan, to some of the most conservative plans. And the heart of that, Julie, was health insurance portability, preexisting condition protections at access, and that was the bill that started off in the Senate, and that’s the one that gained traction and passed until we got to the House. 

Rovner: So, Sen. Kassebaum was one of those legislators who actually believed in passing laws, even if it meant compromising — so you only achieved a few of your goals at a time. Why are there so few people like that on either side anymore? 

Rosen: Yeah, well, you know, I think I would say also about HIPAA that it … she was an incrementalist. I think she was one of the reasons … she was considered a moderate Republican in the day, and I think now even more moderate. But she was at her heart a conservative in the sense of she believed that the best legislating was done sort of inch by inch, step by step, as opposed to in one bill. And you sort of saw that proof come to be when the Clinton plan failed, because it tried to really do everything in the healthcare system; it was huge. I think to your question: Today, it’s harder because there’s just less overlap, and the incentives are such that, you know, as one current member of Congress, very senior, told me a couple years ago, if you’re a Republican, you’re looking over your right shoulder. If you’re a Democrat, you’re looking over your left shoulder. And I think that the venerable, you know, Cook Political Report says that in this election, there are only truly 18 toss-up seats in the House out of 435. And so, what it means is that, you know, 5% of the country is going to decide who controls the House ultimately, and the incentives are not to put together bipartisan bills, big or small, healthcare or not healthcare. But the incentive is, frankly, to play to your base, particularly in a midterm election. Now, that’s not always the case. You do have examples of bipartisanship, but I think it’s harder because of those incentives, which we’ve seen become more and more true as politics has changed, and, frankly, as the country’s changed. 

Rovner: You wrote a really lovely tribute to the senator about going to the White House for the signing of HIPAA by Bill Clinton, which I think just showed sort of the generosity of spirit of Sen. Kassebaum. Tell us about it? 

Rosen: Yeah, so, you know, after Nancy passed away, there’s a group of us who’ve been keeping up through chat over the years, and her family, actually granddaughter and stepdaughter, had informed us all before they informed the press over the weekend that she had passed away. And I suddenly was sitting there over the weekend and realizing, Julie, that it had been — she had died 30 years to the day since HIPAA was signed by Bill Clinton. And, you know, to your point of bipartisanship, that bill passed the House with only two dissenting votes and the Senate unanimously. So not only was it bipartisan, but it passed unanimously. 

So we went over to the White House — to kind of tell a little bit of the story — I’d never been to the White House before. This was, like, my first job on Capitol Hill. I was much younger then, and — obviously — and the senator made sure I was on the invitation list. And this was, you know, Sen. Kassebaum was not really known as a legislator who was someone who passed, you know, tons of major bills. This was really, if you read all the obituaries, the health insurance portability law is one of the two bills they mention — the other one being a general aviation bill, and her work internationally, which was significant around apartheid. But they mention this health insurance bill as her signature achievement. So we go to the White House. It’s a hot August day, and as I said, I realized that she died 30 years to the day after this bill was signed. And I was reflecting on the fact of something that I never really shared publicly before, that at the signing ceremony, it’s traditional — as you know, you’ve probably been to many, many, many of these — that the presidents will sign these bills, they’ll use multiple pens, as Bill Clinton did, and he handed one of the pens to Sen. Kennedy, and he handed another one to Sen. Kassebaum — we’re standing over each of his shoulders. And we’re walking out of the Rose Garden, and Sen. Kassebaum came over to me, and it was just the two of us, and she said, “Here, I want you to have the pen. You wrote the bill.” And, you know, I guess as a staff person you do, but I didn’t think of it that way. I thought of the fact that she was giving away to me really one of the most tangible symbols of her signature bill, and I said, “I can’t take this. This is your bill. This is one of your crowning achievements. You worked so hard to get this done.” And she insisted that I keep it.  

And as I said in the piece that I wrote, you know, it struck me that that was just essential Nancy Kassebaum, that not only in the legislation could she find ways to work with Ted Kennedy, who, she said, in subsequent interviews, coming from Kansas — and folks will appreciate this with Wicked being out — that I think a lot of Kansans thought that Ted Kennedy was the Wicked Witch of the East. But working with Ted Kennedy to get something passed into law, and then coming over to me with no ceremony, with no one around, with no political advantage, and just saying, “Here, I’d like to give you credit, as opposed to taking credit for myself,” I think said a lot about her character, and I shared that story with her family, and they gave me permission to share it publicly. I think it just goes to her character and who she was, which, as I said, I think is, much more important than the legislative achievement, was just the kind of person that it takes to get things like that done in Washington today, and, frankly, in Washington then. 

Rovner: Any chance we’re going to get back to seeing those kinds of legislators on Capitol Hill? We’re both in this for the long run. 

Rosen: Yeah, you know, I have to say, you know, I prefer to be somebody, Julie, who looks forward. I mean, you know, you can look back and wring your hands and be pessimistic. But, you know, I came to Washington as a [Ronald] Reagan Republican, and Reagan always said that he felt like American optimism was the heart of the country, and that our best days were ahead. And I really do feel optimistic about the country. We’ve survived a lot over the last 250 years, and you’ve got examples of bipartisan legislation. You’ve got, you know, Dr. [John] Joyce and [Rep. Greg] Murphy, and [Rep. Kim] Schrier, a bipartisan bill in the House that takes on the difficult and expensive issue of Medicare physician reform. You’ve got a bill by Sen. [Chuck] Grassley and [Catherine] Cortez Masto and others in the Senate that got introduced a couple weeks ago on fraud and abuse at a time when that issue could be really political. 

So to me, I do see people of goodwill in both parties who want to get things done. I think we’ve got to recognize, as we talked about a moment ago, that the broader incentives in our country and in our political environment and in our institutions are pulling people apart. And I think it is going to take people of goodwill to find things to do where they can compromise without losing their principles and find ways to make progress. And I do see hopeful signs of that. You know, I’m not sure we’re going to get back to the day where there’s tremendous overlap and a huge number of moderates in either party, but I think it makes it even more important that people of goodwill who come to Washington as citizen legislators and want to solve things find ways to do that. And in this divided government, where we’ve seen 12 change elections of the last 14 and extremely narrow historic margins, it’s going to take both sides to get things done. 

Rovner: We will keep watching, Dean Rosen. Thank you so much. 

Rosen: Thanks, Julie. Thanks for having me. 

OK, we are back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Rachel, why don’t you go first this week? 

Roubein: My extra credit is from The New York Times. The headline is “,” by Noah Daly and Andrew Jacobs. And the story is about how Americans are traveling abroad, often to Latin America, for psychedelics, a form of medical tourism, and the authors write that this could carry substantial risks. There’s no official tally of injuries, deaths, or adverse events at the overseas psychedelic clinics. But The New York Times interviewed more than two dozen patients and researchers, who cited just a litany of troubling episodes. Basically, the field of psychedelics is in its infancy, so researchers have found this sort of patchwork of standards and rules. And, just for context, here in the United States, the FDA hasn’t approved a psychedelic as of yet, but the idea has really gained traction in recent years for mental health conditions, but particularly, this spring, when President Trump signed an executive order that was aimed at accelerating research into the drugs and also fast-tracking federal reviews of psychedelic medicines. But advocates for these drugs do have concerns about adverse events at overseas clinics because they don’t want it to, you know, kind of spark a backlash that could hamper this trajectory. The Times did speak to a practitioner who said that his prescribing practices were informed by a patient’s self-reported medical history. But I thought this was a really interesting look at what’s happening overbroad given there’s been so much chatter about psychedelics in the United States. 

Rovner: Something else to worry about. Margot. 

Sanger-Katz: I wanted to recommend an article in Stat from Anil Oza. Headline is “.” And this story outlines that a number of people who had submitted comments on a rule about science funding suddenly found their comments removed from the public record. And it appears that the reason is because they were making reference to Russell Vought, the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] head, who, you know, was behind this rule. He has a child with cystic fibrosis who has benefited from a [National Institutes of Health] NIH-funded drug, and I think a lot of them were making reference to that as part of a personal plea for him not to implement this policy. But it’s a little bit puzzling why OMB removed them, on what basis. They haven’t been transparent about it, and there have been basically no explanations. And I think, you know, Secretary Kennedy, during his confirmation hearings, talked about radical transparency in the HHS process and policymaking. And I think this is one of many examples where that really hasn’t happened. There has been a reluctance, I think, by HHS to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking in situations where it is not necessary. There has been a reluctance sometimes to answer questions from the public, from reporters, and I do think that the kind of deletion without explanation of these comments is part of that broader pattern. There is obviously this personal sensitivity here that is part of it, and there may be some valid reason why this public official’s child should not be in the federal record. But it would be nice if someone would explain. 

Rovner: Yeah, and also props not just to Stat, but to the people who actually have been tracking these comments and noticed that they were taken down. Shefali. 

Luthra: All right. My story is from LJ Dawson. It is a collaboration between Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and The Washington Post. The headline is “.” This story combines many of my interests, like European vacations, Greece, and fertility treatment. And I think it’s a really, really, like, interesting and useful look into just how expensive this can be for Americans, especially if insurance doesn’t cover it, and the lengths to which people go to become pregnant. And the family that the story follows, they live in Florida. They could only get pregnant through IVF [in vitro fertilization]. They were quoted close to $40,000 for a round, and they were like, This is nowhere near what we can afford. They realized it was much cheaper to travel to Greece, to literally go on vacation in Greece and get IVF done there. And this is a thing that people genuinely do. Like, I know many people who have looked into the costs of IVF in different European countries, including Scandinavian ones. And I think it’s just a really helpful, dramatic look at what happens when people really, really would benefit from a medical treatment for achieving their fertility goals, their reproductive goals, etc., but it is simply not affordable. And I think this is also interesting because there has been so much chatter about making IVF more affordable, but, in fact, it is more expensive than ever and more in demand than ever because people are having children later, more likely to need fertility treatment, and we don’t really have a good solution yet in sight. 

Rovner: No, except that our system is way too expensive. Well, you may have noticed that in my themes of the summer, I left out the unusual spate of foodborne illnesses. Well, fear not. My extra credit this week is also from The Washington Post. It’s by Tamar Haspel. It’s called “.” And it makes a pretty good case that lettuce and its leafy green cousins are not only the foods most likely to result in foodborne illness, but it’s also not got much to offer nutritionally. It doesn’t store very well, and the land that we use to cultivate it could be better used for, well, better food. I have to say, I stopped buying lettuce a long time ago, mostly because it doesn’t keep very well, and I live by myself. And while I do eat plenty of salad, it’s mostly cucumbers, peppers, and tomatoes. Now, you guys all do you, but I can just say that I haven’t contracted cyclospora this summer. 

All right, that is this week’s show. Thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer this week, Taylor Cook. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts — as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. 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 , or on Bluesky . Where are you guys hanging these days? Shefali. 

Luthra: I’m on Bluesky . 

Rovner: Margot. 

Sanger-Katz: I am all the places , and on Signal at sangerkatz.01. 

Rovner: Rachel. 

Roubein: Several places: on X, ; Bluesky, ; ; Signal; etc. 

Rovner: As I mentioned at the top, we’re taking next week off. You should too, if you can. It’s going to be a busy fall. We will be back in your feed on Sept. 10. Until then, be healthy. 

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. And, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Aug. 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 video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have another “How Would You Fix It?” interview, from his car, with businessman and entrepreneur Mark Cuban, who’s now devoting most of his professional attention to the mess that is U.S. healthcare. But first, this week’s news. So, we finally have a nominee to lead the Food and Drug Administration, which has been without a Senate-confirmed commissioner since Marty Makary resigned in May — officially, over a dispute about flavored vapes. The winner of the search is Heidi Overton, a 37-year-old physician and former protégé of Makary’s from Johns Hopkins, who currently oversees the health portfolio at the White House Domestic Policy Council. What do we know about Dr. Overton, and what are her prospects for confirmation? We’ve already seen HELP [Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions] Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy say on social media that he has “concerns” about her, but he’s voted for nominees about whom he’s had concerns as recently as — checks notes — earlier this month. 

Kenen: I mean, Cassidy’s saying he has concerns is not indicative of where this ends up. At the end of the day, President [Donald] Trump has gotten most of his choices through a Senate that often begins hesitant to recalcitrant and usually gives him what he wants. So … sometimes it doesn’t. I mean, it’s not 100%. So, Cassidy is in a different position politically since he’s about to leave the Senate, and partly because President Trump. So we just don’t know where Cassidy is. But it’s not a great start. But it doesn’t mean … it’s the end. 

Rovner: What do we know about Heidi Overton, though? Everything I’ve read about her, she’s either pro-MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] or the MAHA people don’t like her, or she’s, you know, of Marty Makary or not of Marty McCarry. 

Ollstein: Yeah. So my colleagues and I wrote about this yesterday, and a lot of the leading MAHA activists view her as having been a roadblock in the White House to their efforts around pesticides, around vaccines, and other things, and so they are up in arms about the pick. They are, you know, saying she’s … part of the swamp and not part of, you know, the movement that they want to see sweep aside some of these government practices. And I think that her time in the White House and her previous work for the America First Policy Institute could really come back to haunt her. She wrote a lot of papers and op-eds with some controversial takes and policy positions, and I think everybody is sort of scrambling to go over that. People are also talking about her lack of managerial experience. You know, managing a huge agency with a huge staff, and you know, obviously, we have seen recent examples of people who lack that experience being appointed. So that’s also not a deal-breaker necessarily. But all of these things could add up to be problematic for her in the confirmation process. And then what I focused on was her anti-abortion record, which, you know, both could help and hurt her depending on whose votes we’re talking about. 

Rovner: That’s right. I mean, we saw [Sen.] Patty Murray, senior member of the HELP Committee, come out and, you know, and say, Not somebody that I could ever vote for. And also, I mean, she was at the signing of the vaccine executive order that the president had. So that puts her — whether, whatever she says in her confirmation hearings — that sort of puts her with the “Let’s change the vaccine schedule” group. I mean, she seems to fit in nowhere. I guess that’s sort of my question here. 

Luthra: That’s what’s so interesting about her is that there are these sorts of different interests and constituencies that have concerns about her, but sometimes they feel as if they could be contradictory. You obviously have, I mean, Patty Murray — I don’t know if she was ever going to vote for whoever Trump picked — but then you have Susan Collins in a very difficult reelection race, where abortion is a concern. You now have these concerns about vaccines. You have people saying maybe she’s not MAHA enough. And I mean, I think to Joanne’s point, Trump has gotten most people he has wanted. However, this does feel like this could get very complicated, just given how many people may be bringing different criticism from different vantages that could ultimately add up. 

Kenen: I’m not sure we’ve ever seen anything on the Senate floor where she’s going to be called anti-abortion and pro-pesticide. If it gets to the floor, I mean, it’s a weird one. But at the end of the day, you know, does it go through? You know, if you made me bet, my bet would be yes, but I wouldn’t want to bet a whole lot of money. 

Rovner: Well … we’re going to talk about reproductive health later in the podcast, but I do want to talk about abortion right now in the context of this nomination because, Alice, as you point out, Overton is known to be a fairly strident abortion opponent, and if she is confirmed, she’ll take over the study of the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone, which, as we have mentioned many, many, many times, the administration has sort of backbenched, if you will. Given that the new attorney general, Todd Blanche, has raised the specter of invoking the 1873 Comstock Act to bar the mailing of abortion pills, or anything else used for abortions, what is the outlook for medication abortion if Overton actually becomes the FDA commissioner? 

Ollstein: Well, it’s hard to say because we’ve really seen decision-making centralized in the White House, and so often it doesn’t matter what the Cabinet secretaries want to do. It’s about what the White House wants. And the White House, I think, has made it pretty clear that this is not a top, you know, restricting abortion is not a top priority for them. They are certainly sensitive to the politics of it, and so there is speculation that, you know, there’s a delay until after the midterms for anything meaningful on this front, so as not to risk the kind of backlash we saw in 2022 after the fall of Roe v. Wade. But I think it’s also pretty clear that this is just not a top priority for the White House. That doesn’t mean they won’t allow some of these, you know, former activists to do what they want to do — so Blanche, and now Overton potentially. But I think it’s not really a given either way. 

Rovner: Yeah. All right. Well, meanwhile, in administration news that we’ve talked about before but is still relevant, we’re just over a month from the end of the fiscal year, and grant money is still being held up at the National Institutes of Health, according to our podcast pal Paige [Winfield] Cunningham at NOTUS. Despite pressure from Congress, the agency is still delaying funds for already-approved grants while it conducts searches for keywords that could signal that the grant does not adhere to the administration’s political priorities. And it’s not just keywords. Reading from : “In multiple flagged grants, officials expressed concerns that they weren’t worth funding because their only practical use might be to support the writing of new laws.” Now, this is going on against the backdrop of a proposal from the Office of Management and Budget that would officially insert political approval into grant funding. That’s something the Senate has voted to at least temporarily block, but the House hasn’t weighed in on it yet. This could not only have huge implications for federally funded research going forward, but you could argue it’s having implications now. We’re seeing researchers, you know, taking opportunities overseas because they don’t know what their, you know, grant funding continuation is going to look like, and students not going to graduate school or not pursuing research careers. I mean, this is … even some of these sort of small things are having these bigger potential ripples as they go outward, right? 

Kenen: Colleagues who are grant-funded, NIH-funded, or other government-funded. I mean, they try to track the ever-changing rules. First of all, it’s very murky. It is changing. They keep adding things. Basically, they don’t want — not just the banned words — they don’t want research that can be bad, that can be used for policy …  

Rovner: For things they disagree with, for policies they disagree with. 

Kenen: They don’t say it … right. Guidance doesn’t come out and say “policy that you know we don’t like.” It just says “policy.” But it’s really vast and confusing. It’s not new. What Paige wrote about is an update. I mean, this is still happening. It’s been happening since the beginning of the Trump administration. NIH is the biggie. There are some smaller agencies, like Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research [sic], AHRQ, right? 

Rovner: Research and Quality. 

Kenen: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. That’s pretty much defunct now. But those grants, the money stopped going out the door many months ago. So …  

Rovner: And the National Science Foundation. I mean, NIH is sort of the biggest of them. Yeah. 

Kenen: It has to have the word “science.” … NIH is the biggie, right? I mean, and it’s also the bench science, the science that the drug industry … people don’t understand, they say, Let the drug industry do it. They can’t do this kind of basic bench research. They take this research and develop drugs, but the fundamental cellular level is NIH, or NIH-funded. And it’s really, I mean, clinical trials have been stopped in the middle — really promising research that is not partisan. … Disease doesn’t care. It’s cliché, and it’s also true. It just stopped, and work has been lost. But people haven’t done things that are several years in. … The deadline, also, for fiscal year spending is, if it’s not out the door, which is Sept 30, anything that’s out that door is, like, that’s done. It’s it. Bye-bye. The money isn’t gonna, unless it would go through a whole new process next year, which is unlikely in these grants, that’s the end of that. 

Rovner: Yeah, and that’s, I mean, my point in wanting to bring this up again — and you’re right, it is sort of an update of what we’ve seen — is that every time one of these top administration officials comes to Congress, they say, You’re supposed to be spending the money that we have appropriated, and they say, Oh yeah, not a problem. We’re going to spend the money that you’ve appropriated. And yet we keep seeing these stories that they are not spending money that Congress has appropriated. 

Kenen: Yeah, and historically NIH has been reasonably bipartisan. There have been years when there have been fights. There’s obviously stem cells and sort of certain issues have been, you know, very hot potato. But the basic enterprise of U.S. science, health science, has been largely bipartisan. Again, not every appropriation season, not every bill. But if you look at the overall arc, it’s bipartisan. 

Rovner: It was Republicans who doubled NIH funding in the 1990s — who led it.  

Kenen: [Arlen] Specter. 

Rovner: It was Newt Gingrich, actually. I mean. 

Kenen: Yeah, Gingrich, too, was very into health tech and things like that before his time. I mean, the War on Cancer was federal, right? That was [President Richard] Nixon. So, but we’re now in a …  

Rovner: Different place. 

Kenen: Yeah, frozen. 

Rovner: Yeah. Meanwhile, Mike Stobbe at the AP is at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — again, where money’s been appropriated, but there is literally nobody at home. At the agency’s Office on Smoking and Health, and offices on Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, and sickle cell data collection, funds are allocated, but all the staffers have either been laid off or are still on administrative leave. So they’re being paid, but they are banned from working. This is yet another immediate challenge for new CDC Director Erica Schwartz, who had her first meeting with CDC staff yesterday. What do we expect her to take on first? 

Luthra: I don’t envy her. It, frankly, seems very difficult to figure out what your priorities are or should be, if you perhaps don’t have staff. It does seem like, from the reporting, perhaps a priority that she has outlined might be morale. And we know that morale has been very low in a lot of government agencies and the executive — especially places like the CDC, where you have a lot of career people who are mission-oriented, really believe in doing things for public health, and have seen that really attacked. And so I don’t know if that is enough to actually translate into things that are supposed to happen actually happening. But that seems like probably a place where it makes sense to start, right?, is just to help people feel confident that they actually will be able to do the work that they signed up to do. 

Rovner: Yeah, and you know, as you say, CDC is perhaps the most mission-oriented of all the HHS agencies. And because they’re in Atlanta, and you know not in the Washington area the way most of the rest of HHS is, they do often feel cut off. So she does have … she has a lot on her plate. And speaking of the CDC, the agency put out a rather cryptic press release this week on vaccine uptake among kindergartners entering school, noting that “CDC continues to encourage parents to discuss vaccination options with their doctors.” Meanwhile, the data linked to in the press release shows a small increase in parents opting out of having their children vaccinated nationwide. But that masks a much larger increase in some states. In Idaho, for example, just 75% of kindergartners entering school have had the MMR [measles, mumps, and rubella] vaccine. That’s obviously well below the 95% needed to provide herd immunity for measles. As my friend Jonathan Cohn put it in his piece for The Bulwark. “The scientific term for that is yikes.” Yikes indeed. 

Kenen: And it’s even within states … and some rural counties … there’s a lot of variation. The trend … for a number of years now has been dropping vaccine rates. Period. So I mean, whether CDC wants to engage in this as their first issue, they’re going to be asked about it. … They track it … can’t avoid it, because they have to approve and recommend, and, you know, insurance coverage, all sorts of things are imminent. So decisions have to be made. … Back to school’s already started in some parts of the country. 

Rovner: And so … I would say new CDC Director Schwartz was rather pointedly not in the room when the president signed the executive order on vaccines, even though now-FDA nominee Heidi Overton was. 

Kenen: She cannot put her head in the sand on this one. She’s going to have to … 

Rovner: “She” Schwartz?  

Kenen: Yeah. So she’s she says, I mean, what we know so far is she’s been quite, you know, she went to the CDC, and the reports are that she came out and said, you know, I’m going to stick to the science, and the science supports vaccines.  

Ollstein: I thought what was really interesting about the recent reports is that, you know, the executive order the Trump administration signed doesn’t actually change anything legally, but it’s designed to put pressure on states to change their recommendations. And it’s been fascinating to me to see that even the reddest states really aren’t going for it yet. But that doesn’t mean that everything’s fine and everyone’s getting vaccinated. What we are seeing is, you know, individual parents making these moves away from vaccination. And so even without the state officially changing its requirements, the environment is just shifting, and using the bully pulpit in this way is changing people’s behavior — building on trends that were already happening: distrust and misinformation, and all of that. And so … even a small, small decline in the vaccination rate can have huge negative effects. I mean, the difference between having 97% vaccination vs. 91% — it may not seem like a big deal, but that’s the difference between herd immunity and people really being vulnerable. 

Rovner: And lots and lots more cases of measles, as we are seeing already this year. I mean, it’s, you know, talk about things that were completely predictable. Well, meanwhile, as my Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleagues Amanda Seitz and Stephanie Armour point out this week, all of this public pronouncing by the president and other health officials about the supposed dangers of vaccines comes as HHS Secretary RFK Jr. blows past deadline after deadline to uncover the promised cause of the rising cases of autism. The story notes that the secretary “has looking for root causes in a research effort that’s offered no public status updates and few details about who, or even which agency, is leading the effort.” We do know that one of the people working on the project is Reyn Archer — he’s a noted vaccine critic, son of a former House Ways and Means Committee chairman, and was head of the Title X Family Planning Program during the George H.W. Bush administration in the early 1990s — even as he was publicly opposing legalized birth control, which of course is what the Title X program does. He later served as Texas’ state health commissioner under then-Gov. George W. Bush, although he was eventually fired for making racist remarks to a subordinate. I had not heard his name since, until now. But he’s going to uncover the root causes of autism, am I right? That’s the plan? 

Kenen: More power to him. I mean, autism. It’s not like there’s no research, and the conclusion is that it’s multi-causal. That there’s not one cause. That’s the current state of the science, which can always evolve. But the current belief is there’s probably a genetic component, but it’s a mix of factors that we don’t fully understand. But vaccines is not one of them. 

Rovner: Or at least so every study, every big study, we have seen continues to say. Well, moving on, lots of news about healthcare prices this week, which remain a pressing issue for both Republican and Democratic voters as the midterms draw near. One interesting story this week noted that prescription drug prices fell year over year by more than 3% — that’s the largest drop since the early 1960s — but it’s not entirely clear why. The Trump administration, of course, says it was their efforts, particularly to bring down the price of those popular but very expensive GLP-1 weight loss drugs. Analysts say it’s more likely the result of the Biden-era Medicare drug price negotiations, which involved more widely used medications. Whichever, I imagine if you’re not seeing your prices drop at the pharmacy, and those drops may well be absorbed by insurers and middlemen and all the people we talk about, will this good news even have much of an impact when people go to the polls? 

Luthra: I can’t imagine it necessarily would be that meaningful because overall the macro trends remain pretty bad. Health insurance is still getting very expensive. Employers are really struggling — those that offer it — they are largely passing more costs to consumers. And so people are getting to have to pay more for healthcare, even if their drug prices may be decreasing in the aggregate. And so it’s just hard to really suggest that this good news could really outweigh those other factors, especially when you think about the broader sort of angst that exists around costs and costs continuing to go up. 

Rovner: Yeah, well, in wonky news that could actually have a larger impact on what people pay for medical care, the Trump administration is actually going after some deep-pocketed healthcare providers. Stat News reports, in separate stories, first that the — that’s the parent of UnitedHealthcare, the insurer, and Optum, the services and tech arm — for allegedly underpaying taxes by funneling money through a foreign subsidiary. And second, the for potential antitrust violations. State attorneys general are also looking at Epic’s alleged anticompetitive practices. Cracking down on some of the monopolistic practices of the largest payers in the healthcare system actually could end up saving the system money, right? I mean, this was … something that we saw a fair bit of during the Biden administration, particularly from the Federal Trade Commission, and not so much of during the Trump administration, which has seemed to have been more favorable, if you will, to big companies. 

Luthra: I guess there’s still that question about providers, and obviously bringing down prices and addressing consolidation in payers, amongst things like electronic health record companies, can be effective, but we probably also would want to see meaningful movement in terms of provider consolidation as well, and that just seems potentially like a bigger hill to climb. 

Rovner: But this is a start. One would say, particularly this administration, going after United, which is sort of the the biggest … United’s power threatens the federal government’s bargaining power at this point. I was interested to see, you know, this story, if nothing else, made public, because obviously somebody leaked it. We will see how these all shake out. Well, finally, Costco, home of the cheap rotisserie chicken and the $1.50 hot dog and soda, is entering the Medicare market, . According to the Journal, Costco will partner with the nonprofit SCAN Group to offer Medicare Advantage plans in two states and a Medicare supplement, Medigap, plan in a third state. Could this eventually make a dent in the private Medicare market? Costco already does big business selling discount prescription drugs, eyeglasses, and hearing aids. I get my dog’s flea and tick medication at Costco. It costs half of what it does at my vet’s office. One presumes this could be, you know, a leader. We’ve not seen this before, right? 

Kenen: The head of SCAN, which is a pretty reputable insurance company … 

Rovner: Nonprofit insurance company. 

Kenen: Nonprofit insurance, and I should say I know … personally the current CEO, president, whatever his post is. I mean, but you know, I’ve written a lot about aging over the years, and it’s basically considered … one of the higher-quality, more reliable elderly-focused health plans. And he has something interesting to write when he announced it or wrote about on LinkedIn about how he personally, like, is a big Costco guy. But he talked about trust, which we’re all talking all the time about how there’s a lack of trust in healthcare. There’s a lot of trust in Costco, and he talked about how branding, SCAN, and Costco, you know … obviously it’s a business decision he made, but he’s also, like, this big Costco guy and who worries — I know him through conferences on trust, actually, that’s where I met him — and he’s thinking, OK, Costco, in addition to, like, giving you way too much of whatever it is you thought you needed, it can also fix the trust crisis in America. Right? 

Rovner: Hey! 

Kenen: And they’re efficient, right? I mean, I don’t know if all four of us are Costco people, but the, you know … 

Rovner: I am. 

Kenen: I saw her. I ran into her buying her veterinarian [unintelligible, through laughter] … I was in the photo section. … It is a trusted brand, and it’s an interesting — and they have national reach in there, you know. 

Rovner: And you will hear in my conversation with Mark Cuban that trust is a really big deal in healthcare right now. I mean, we obviously talk about this every week. I mean, I’m, obviously this is a very small step, but I’m really interested in where it turns out. 

Kenen: It’s a smart business move, and it’s a talker, too. Like, people are gonna see this headline and pay attention to it because it’s, like, just a thing. 

Rovner: Yeah, it is. All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back. 

So, a good bit of reproductive health news this week. Glad to have both Alice and Shefali here. We will start in Idaho, where a federal district court judge ruled that the state’s abortion ban cannot be used to prosecute doctors who perform abortions to protect the pregnant person’s health, not just her life. Of course, abortion opponents vehemently oppose health exceptions, as they’re called, because they say health includes mental health, and that becomes a loophole so big that it basically eviscerates the ban. The state’s attorney general, former congressman Raúl Labrador, said he would appeal and was confident the decision would be overturned. I would imagine that he’s probably right. Is the Supreme Court eventually going to have to spell this out? I wouldn’t be that surprised if they wanted to. 

Ollstein: I think this gets into some of the same EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act] territory, where we have seen the Supreme Court sort of back away from in recent years. But again, we just keep circling around and around the same question, which is, when is an abortion OK for a medical emergency purpose? How close to dying does a woman have to get before a doctor can perform an abortion? And we’ve seen again and again in Idaho that doctors are scared and confused, and even when they think that they should have the right to perform the procedure, you know, they’re still putting women on these dangerous life flights to other states in order to get care, leading to hours and hours of delays and potential complications. And so, you know, this court case and this court ruling was sort of aimed at clarifying that and giving doctors the confidence to be able to intervene when they feel it’s medically necessary. But now we’re seeing the state challenge that, and we’re just going around and around. And, you know, there have been similar cases in other states, just a whole mix of rulings, one way or the other, and that just creates more of a patchwork where, you know, some somebody’s ability to get care varies completely between states — and even within states, between hospitals, based on how much you know institutional backing doctors feel like they have. You know, will their hospital’s lawyers go to the mat for them or not? Do they work in a private practice vs. a big hospital system? All of these things come into play, 

Rovner: And, of course, we’ve also seen doctors, particularly in Idaho, leaving the state because they’re afraid that they can’t practice. I mean, they can’t adequately care for their patients. Shefali, I see you nodding. 

Luthra: Yeah, and what’s interesting about this case, other than the fact that Idaho will actually have an abortion ballot measure this November, is that we do have a federal judge here saying, in particular contexts, I see a right to an abortion. And I was talking to some abortion legal scholars about this, and they made the point that, in a way, this runs afoul of the Dobbs decision, because you do have a federal judge saying people are actually entitled to abortions, and that is a right that they have, even if it is much narrower than what Roe v. Wade guaranteed. And obviously, this is going to be appealed. This is going to continue to be litigated. We may not see immediate change for people’s ability to get healthcare in Idaho or other places with very strict bans, but it does underscore how unsettled these legal questions remain — how there remains a lot of debate over whether Dobbs was actually a correct interpretation of constitutional law. And I think it really takes us back to the argument we heard from some of the conservative majority that this would now settle every question about abortion. Obviously, it has not. Obviously, many more questions will continue to be argued and litigated in the courts. 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, meanwhile, in other breaking news, a federal judge here in Washington blocked the Trump administration’s changes to the teen pregnancy prevention program that funds classes on contraception and abstinence, among other things. But they’re still not necessarily getting the money appropriated by Congress, right, Alice? 

Ollstein: So a judge in D.C. is blocking the administration from using its very strict new guidance going forward when it doles out money for the program, but it’s not ordering the administration to give back the money that was already cut earlier this summer from all of these grantees around the country. And, by the way, the money was cut both from grantees like Planned Parenthood, where you would say, “Oh, well, that sort of makes sense that the administration would go after their money.” But they’re also cutting funding from, you know, faith-based programs, abstinence-only programs in very red states, and prompting a fair amount of backlash that I’ve been covering. You know, places like Texas and South Carolina and West Virginia have also lost funding. And, of course, all the programs in those states had to abide by state restrictions around what can be taught. And so they were already following these very conservative guidelines. But that’s not conservative enough for the administration, which put out this guidance saying, you know, while abstinence-only was an option before, now it is basically mandatory. And so that guidance is on hold, but, again, the judge said that he didn’t know if he had the authority to order them to give back the money, or if some other jurisdiction could handle that. And so, this is just a preliminary injunction, which means there’s going to be months and months of litigation going forward. 

Rovner: Finally, this week, a story from the “Who Could Ever Have Imagined This?” files: A California couple hired a surrogate in Alaska to carry their pregnancy. After the fetus was diagnosed with a life-threatening heart condition, the couple exercised their option in the surrogacy contract to terminate the pregnancy. But the surrogate refused to have an abortion, and she traveled to Texas, where abortion is illegal, and gave birth to a baby boy last week. News reports say the baby, who is now in the custody of the couple who are biologically his parents, had the first of several surgeries needed to treat the heart condition. But this is a genuinely wrenching situation. Who gets to decide what here and under which state’s laws? Bioethicist Arthur Caplan told Houston Public Media that there are so many ethical issues here, he could spend an entire semester’s course teaching it. 

Luthra: And I think what is important about this case as well is, I mean, it’s obviously just like so, so, so sad, and this poor family is just having to deal with something really heartbreaking that no one should have to navigate under the national spotlight in Texas. It is really energizing conservatives who want to ban surrogacy, and we have already heard from lawmakers in the state legislature say they will be looking at surrogacy specifically when they convene next year. I have talked to anti-abortion activists in the state who are very hopeful that this case will give them new impetus to ban, at the very least, commercial surrogacy. They would love to ban all forms of surrogacy. And it is seen by a lot of anti-abortion folks who oppose fertility treatment, including IVF [in vitro fertilization], as something maybe easier to target. And I think it’s politically really complicated, because Americans don’t know as many people who get pregnant through surrogacy as they do people who might use IVF. But when I was talking to, again, legal experts about this, one point they made is that if surrogacy restrictions do take off in a meaningful way, often, the intellectual framework and arguments being made are ultimately the ones that would be used for IVF restrictions as well. And so, there is a possibility of a real slippery slope and more of that opening the door to fertility treatment restrictions that could affect a lot of people. 

Kenen: I think there’s a lot of public misunderstanding about what a gestational carrier is. When surrogacy became, not common, but sort of emerged in the public eye, there were a couple of really high-profile court cases. This was in the late ’80s. The “Baby M” was the most famous. And these were situations, at that point, where the woman carrying the child, it was her egg. So in the Baby M case, it was a couple that couldn’t have children. She was-— I don’t even know if that was — that wasn’t probably IVF. That was probably some other kind of artificial insemination. But the woman who decided she didn’t want to give up the baby after carrying it — it was, in fact, her biological child — and the practice became not to let, to separate the surrogate carrier from the egg donor. It’s not 100%. It’s not that it never happens, particularly if there’s family situations where maybe an aunt carries, etc. In this case, we’re really, based on public record, because I did a little reading on it this morning, it’s not clear, of the “biological parents,” it’s his baby. It’s not 100% clear on the public record that it’s actually her egg, the wife’s egg. But it is not the carrier’s egg. The woman suing to keep the child, saying she wants to have the baby, it is not her, it was not her egg. State law varies. Most states say that the surrogate in this kind of situation does not have maternal rights; that it’s the couple that hired her. Texas is, I believe, more blurry. There are a few states that it is more ambiguous, and also remember that this is a really tight, unusually and unexpectedly tight Senate race in Texas, where a very anti-abortion state, obviously, and also in this case the couple says they didn’t even ask for the abortion, but that’s he-said-she-said-they-said, we don’t know. I don’t know, at least, right? But abortion is a huge political driver in Texas; it’s a close race. [Ken] Paxton, who is the state attorney general, who is taking the side of the surrogate mother, is also the Senate candidate. You know, this is, you know, we’re 2½ months out, whatever, from the election. Three, I guess, closer to three still. But it’s very political in a state that probably has more politics around abortion than probably any other state. 

Rovner: Just what we needed: another thorny issue to throw into this mix. All right, that is this week’s news, or at least as much of it as we could get to. Now we will play my in-the-car interview with Mark Cuban, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome businessman and entrepreneur Mark Cuban to “How Would You Fix It?” Mark is probably best known to most people as a former shark on the TV show Shark Tank and the former [co-]owner of the Dallas Mavericks NBA team. But he’s also the co-founder of the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs company, which sells generic medications directly to consumers at transparent prices and big discounts. More recently, he’s been talking about even bigger reforms to the healthcare system, which is why I’m so excited to have him here. Mark Cuban, thank you so much for joining us. 

Mark Cuban: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: I’m curious: Your background’s been mostly in tech and in sports. How did you come to make healthcare such a priority? 

Cuban: I got a cold email from my now co-founder, Dr. Alex Oshmyansky, and he wanted to build a compounding pharmacy that made sterile injectables that are on the FDA short-supply list — which it’s crazy that there is a short-supply list for generic injectables. So that was great, but it wasn’t big enough. And as I looked into it, it was right around the time that “pharma bro” [Martin Shkreli] was going to jail, and I was like, “How can this dude jack up the price of a generic medication to the detriment of so many people?” And then it became obvious that nobody knew what a medication costs, nobody knew why it cost what it costs, and nobody understood why everybody paid a different price for the same medication. That list led to us launching costplusdrugs.com in January of 2022, and it’s just been growing like a weed ever since. 

Rovner: For decades now, the big debate in health policy has been whether the system should be more run by the government or more run by the private sector. Is that even the right way to focus on this anymore? Now everything is sort of hybrid and a mess. 

Cuban: Yeah, no, it’s not, because if the government doesn’t have data, and the government can’t trust the vendors that they’re working with, it doesn’t matter that it’s the government doing all the negotiating. And you see that in other countries. For instance, we get emails from countries around the world — from Canada, England — asking to buy generics from us ’cause our prices for generics, particularly specialty generics, are less expensive than what they sell for in countries that have single-payer or universal care. And so, while I’m not opposed to single-payer or universal healthcare at all, and kind of the analogy I use is: If healthcare costs $1 per person per year — yeah, great, taxpayers would pay that. But it would be a set $1 and it’d be obviously inexpensive. But when you don’t know all the costs, when there’s no transparency, it’s impossible to determine if it’s a better solution or not. 

Rovner: Are there segments of the healthcare industry that would work better if the private sector ran them, and better if the government ran them? I’m thinking, you know, hospitals, doctors, drugs.  

Cuban: I don’t think it’s like that at all. I think it depends on how much transparency there is. The fundamental issue is transparency and trust. If you don’t know … like, there are a lot of hospitals, and you know this better than anybody, that don’t know their costs. And if you just hire the same people and just say, “Look, we’re going to pay Medicare pricing to Mayo Clinic, and Mayo Clinic doesn’t know all their costs,” or “We’re going to take an urban hospital and continue to pay them Medicare and Medicaid because that’s most of their business,” and they don’t know their cost, they just know their cash balance, it doesn’t matter who runs it. 

Rovner: So, what do you fix first? 

Cuban: Transparency. You have to be able to publish contracts so that any contract that’s signed with a federal agency, the federal government, a state agency, a city, not only are the terms of the contract published, but the prices are published, so that Tricare would be required to publish their prices. By seeing the actual contract, you can see where the city-state agency is getting ripped off. Because right now there’s confidentiality requirements, and the companies, like the big insurance conglomerates, they say, you know, we can’t do this. We can’t show this, it’s proprietary information, which is nonsense. You’ve got hundreds of thousands of companies. You’ve got hundreds of agencies and states and cities that negotiate the same contracts. So lots of people know, but they do it to make it more complicated. And so, as a result, nobody knows how the deals are structured. And if you don’t know how the deals are structured, it’s impossible to negotiate better ones. And if they’ll sue you for discussing it with their peers, then nobody … it’s like Fight Club. The No. 1 rule [of] Fight Club is you can’t talk about Fight Club. The No. 1 rule of healthcare contracts is you can’t talk about healthcare contracts. 

Rovner: Yeah, and we’ve, you know, Congress has passed laws. The president has pushed a lot of these transparency rules, and basically, the health industry has said, “Yep, sorry, we can’t do it,” or “We’re going to do it in such a way that you can’t find it out anyway.” 

Cuban: Correct. 

Rovner: “We’re going to send you reams and reams and reams of data, and you can go digging if you would like.” 

Cuban: Correct. And so you take that to the next step. The big healthcare companies — first of all, they’re vertically integrated. They have hundreds, if not thousands, of subsidiaries. People don’t even know what the subsidiaries are when they do business with them, right? And so, when that happens, there’s just no way for any of the states, cities, federal government to enforce the laws. The big healthcare companies have more lawyers, move faster, are better able to find loopholes than the government and the agencies that enforce it are able to enforce it. And so, what ends up happening. You see all these fines. This PBM, this insurance company, whatever got fined for A, B, or C, and then they just go right back to doing business with them. So when I talk to governors, one of the first things I say in terms of reform is A) publish the contracts, and B) if you are doing business with a vertically integrated healthcare company, and they are fined by any federal agency or any state government, they get one mulligan. If they are fined a second time, they can’t do business with you for five years. That will act as the enforcement mechanism to keep them in line. And then the third thing that I always push is that anybody is able to go out and make a cash purchase, whether it’s medical or pharmacy, as long as it’s less expensive than their out-of-pocket, and have it by law count towards their deductible and max out-of-pocket. When you do that, you give them the opportunity to shop. When something is shoppable — not everything is — but you give them the opportunity to shop, and that helps force down prices. 

Rovner: So, I’ve been doing this since the 1980s, and it’s always been the Democrats beating up on the big insurance companies, and the Republicans basically defending them. Now that Republicans are beating up on the big insurance companies, are we kind of inevitably going towards a government-run single-payer? 

Cuban: No. Like, if you look up, if you look at the Break Up Big Medicine bill that was introduced by Josh Hawley, a Republican, and Elizabeth Warren, to me that’s the first step. So the good news: It was introduced on a bipartisan basis. Because if you break up these big, huge conglomerates, everything changes. The price of everything drops like a rock. But the problem is, nobody else, no senators have supported it, and nobody in the House has introduced a comparable bill. Everybody just chickened out. And so that’s the first step. Put aside the economics. Put aside that we don’t know the cost. Put aside that we have no transparency. All those things are important, but making sure we have health care for everybody is more important. That’s the difference. I think that also should be an American dream. As an entrepreneur, I’m a big fan of the American dream. But being able to be healthy and not be afraid that you can’t afford what you need or your family needs, that’s wrong in our American dream. And you know, when we talk about healthcare as a right, doctors freak out because they presume that they’re going to be paid Medicare rates, and they lose control of their life, right? And they talk about opting out and not doing it, you know. And so you need to get all these stakeholders accounted for. And until you start to do that and put together a plan that people will accept, we’re not going to ever be in a position to take care of people like so many of us hope to do. 

Rovner: And yet that would require both parties to basically lay down their arms.  

 

Cuban: Yes, which I think is possible. I think it’s doable because the No. 1 thing that, in every poll, people are concerned about healthcare costs. It’s not the quality of healthcare. Nobody really complains about the quality. Our doctors are great. Our systems are great. It’s the economic side. And who defines the economic side? Those humongous healthcare conglomerates. And what’s the best way to get to a point where we have transparency at the contract level, you know, flexibility and understanding, etc., all the things I mentioned? You break up those huge conglomerates that have thousands of subsidiaries that do $150-plus billion in intercompany transfers, that game the medical loss ratio. I mean, all these things happen because those big companies have more control over the economics of our healthcare system than the government does. 

Rovner: Well, I hope we actually get to that point, and I hope you’re around to help with some of these stakeholder conversations. 

Cuban: Oh, hopefully I’m not going anywhere. 

Rovner: Thank you so much. 

OK, we’re back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Shefali, you picked first. Why don’t you go first this week? 

Luthra: Sure. My story is from The 19th by my colleague Barbara Rodriguez. The headline is “.” And I love this whole genre of story. The GLP-1 market is exploding because these drugs can be so expensive to get from your healthcare provider. You see advertisements everywhere, all over social media, people promising to sell you a GLP-1. And as Barbara’s story gets into, often they are not actually GLP-1s. It is something fake. It is not actually going to help you lose weight, but it is going to take your money. And I just think that this is such an exploding market. So much has changed that we can’t read enough about how the, just the growth of options, or not legitimate options, is affecting people, and I’m really glad she did this story. 

Rovner: Yeah, it was a really good story. Alice. 

Ollstein: I have a story from The Texas Observer by Mary Tuma, and it’s called “.” So this is taking a deep dive on the situation in Texas, but the article does a good job of pointing out that this is a trend across several states that implemented abortion bans, where there was, you know, efforts to pause or revamp, or obscure, or change in some way the groups in every, that exist in every state that study maternal deaths. And there is just a suspicion that this is an attempt to hide from the public the impact of the abortion ban on maternal mortality. You have a lot of experts quoted in this piece. You have the family members who have lost their wives and mothers to pregnancy-related deaths, and so this is just an ongoing fight. And, you know, doctors say we really need this data and this analysis to know how to better provide care in the future. It’s not just a political football; it’s actual medical knowledge that we need to build. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think ProPublica did this for Georgia, I think, last year, so yet another in these series. Joanne. 

Kenen: There’s a story in Politico by Owen Dahlkamp: “.” This is not unique to health law, but given how complicated health law is and how much health law Congress deals with in any given year, it’s quite relevant to health law. So staffers are using AI to actually draft legislation, not just to research something. And I mean, it’s hard to get away from AI now. It’s, like, even pops up on people’s phones, right? But drafting legislation is very precise and complicated, and AI is apparently not very good at it. So the House counsel, which is the Office of Legal Counsel, which actually has to make sure the legislative language is correct and doesn’t accidentally reveal the wrong thing, they’re having a hard time. Although they have now created their own tool to try to correct the AI slop, but they’re getting overwhelmed. There’s, you know, we’ve all seen stories, we’ve all gotten pitches about, you know, so-and-so introduced a law. What the general public doesn’t understand is introducing a law, you know, it’s good for a press release — introducing a bill, excuse me. Introducing a bill does not mean a whole hell of a lot, except that you’re satisfying some constituent or constituent group, right? But congresspeople and senators like to say they introduce this and they introduce that and they introduce the other thing. So the number of bills being introduced was already rising spectacularly, and now with the slop, there’s like the slopth degree of it. So it’s messy. 

Rovner: It is messy, and it does, I mean, it sort of prevents the real work of actually drafting legislation that’s going to become law from getting done. 

Kenen: There’s going to be something, like, really bad that comes out that somebody in the poor OLC office doesn’t catch, and it’s going to repeal, like, you know, the flag. 

Rovner: Yeah. We will see. All right my extra credit this week is from Mother Jones by Sophie Hurwitz. It’s called “.” And you may have heard that ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] is spending $20 million to buy these gloves, which administer an electric shock at the touch of a button on the wrist for their officers. What makes them better than a Taser or other non-[lethal] device? Well, one Missouri police officer whose force uses them said the gloves “allow their wearer to inflict pain without leaving the sort of marks that could look bad to witnesses or leave an officer vulnerable to lawsuits.” In other words, they make it easier for people to inflict pain on others, whether warranted or not, without likely recourse. How very 2026. 

OK, that is this week’s show. Thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our fill-in producer-engineer this week, Zach Dyer. We also had production help from Taylor Cook. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts — as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. 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 , and on Bluesky . Where are you guys hanging these days? Alice? 

Ollstein: on Bluesky and on X. 

Rovner: Shefali. 

Luthra: on Bluesky. 

Rovner: Joanne. 

Kenen: Mostly on and on . 

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

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. And, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Aug. 13, at 10:30 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via video conference 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 Bloomberg Law. 

Sandhya Raman: Hello, everyone. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my “Bill of the Month” interview with Paula Andalo. But first, this week’s news. We’ll start this week with vaccine policy — more specifically, vaccine policy being made from the Oval Office. On Monday, President [Donald] Trump, surrounded by HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and other health officials, signed an executive order calling for “gold-standard” childhood vaccine recommendations. The order calls for the current federal childhood vaccine schedule to be divided into three parts: one with a shorter list of shots recommended for all children, another list for high-risk populations, and a final list of vaccines to be given as a result of “shared decision-making” between doctors and parents. The president also wants to separate the combination measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine into three separate shots, which don’t actually exist in the U.S. at the moment. That would necessitate more visits for parents and more individual sticks for kids. While the order itself has no force of law, it does direct each executive department and agency to “take [any] appropriate steps to advance them, to the fullest extent allowable by law.” So, what’s the immediate impact of this? Besides a whole lot of confusion, because when RFK Jr. tried to do essentially this, back last year, it was blocked by a federal judge. 

Edney: Yeah, I think confusion is the main impact of this right now. You know, this comes in the news every so often because President Trump has not wanted to let this go, even though we kind of thought he was — or at least RFK Jr. was — directed to let it go because of the midterms and how that was looking. But this is something that President Trump has really had on his agenda and not let go. And I think that there is not really a possibility for an immediate impact, say, with breaking up the shots. Like it doesn’t, like you said, it doesn’t exist here. Merck, which is a company that makes these MMR shots, said that could take up to 10 years. It’s not just a simple thing for them to do. So, in the meantime, you have some parents who are wondering, Well, is this bad? Like, what should I be doing? How … you know. So I think confusion is the No. 1 impact here. 

Rovner: Yeah, I want to break this down into sort of what it means for health and what it means for policy and what it means for politics. So, in terms of health, the U.S. is already in the midst of its worst measles outbreak since 1991, and we’re seeing more cases of other vaccine-preventable diseases, including whooping cough and even tetanus. And pediatricians are already slammed. How are they ever going to make room for all these extra appointments and parent discussions of these vaccines that used to be sort of generally recommended and now are going to have to be the subject of individual discussions? Anna, you’re the mom on the panel. 

Edney: Yeah, I was thinking that from the parents’ side, but yes, from the pediatricians’ side as well. I mean, they’re already overwhelmed. They already have a huge list of patients trying to get in for many things. And from the parents’ side and the child’s side, this is, like you had mentioned, more sticks. … The children will have to be given more shots in this case, and a lot of times that can mean missed shots because going once kind of gets everything done. We all like to have a one-stop shop versus having to go to a bunch of different times. And so, besides the confusion, [it] could decrease vaccine adherence because people just might miss those shots. You know, they’re going into the first year of childhood, so many parents, even in the first couple weeks or months, are back at work and are having to carve out time for this. So it could, you know, it could really overwhelm the physician, the pediatricians’ offices, with these conversations, and you know, kind of just lead to actually less protection for children. 

Rovner: And hence, I’d say, the increase in vaccine-preventable diseases that we’re actually seeing. Go ahead, Maya. 

Goldman: I was just going to say there are also all these other logistical concerns — like we mentioned, these shots don’t even exist yet in the U.S. So that’s, you know, step one. But then you need more storage at the pediatrician’s office for a shot that’s three separate shots instead of one combination. You need more people working at the office to accommodate all the extra appointments that are already in a shortage of pediatricians in a lot of places in the country, and healthcare support workers. And so it’s just this huge cascade of side effects. 

Edney: Yeah, and I think we should add to that: When President Trump talked about this from the Oval Office, he linked wanting to separate these shots to the rise in autism, and there is evidence that’s showing that that is an issue, and that the shots should be separated for that reason. 

Rovner: And just last week, we had another large-scale study that showed no increase in autism due to childhood vaccines. I want to talk about policy, too. There’s one particularly ominous phrase in the EO [executive order] that says that states, who set the rules on which vaccines are required for school attendance, are “advised to review” the recommendations and “consider updating relevant laws and regulations that define the scope of immunization requirements.” On a brief call with reporters on Monday, one administration official suggested that newly sworn-in Attorney General Todd Blanche could go after states that don’t provide enough exceptions to their immunization policies with violating federal religious freedom laws. Is this really good policy or good politics? I mean, most states — I did go back and look — most states have exceptions, have medical exceptions; obviously, if a kid can’t take a shot, a kid can’t take the shot. Most of them also have religious exceptions. But it’s not clear how broad this administration wants those exceptions to be, and what it might do about states that don’t allow exceptions. I would note that one of the few states that has almost no exceptions is West Virginia, which is a very red state. 

Raman: I think this is really the area to watch on this. I mean, a lot of the other pieces of this executive order are broader, and I think a little bit more, you know, messaging to the political base based on some of these logistical issues that we’ve outlined. But this is a direct action to three different agencies, you know, to look at these exemptions. And this is already something that they’ve been investigating … there are already some lawsuits about some of these exceptions in the five states that don’t have, as you know, the same exemptions as other states. So I think here is really the area to look, especially with Blanche now confirmed, and just keeping an eye on some of the existing cases that are already there challenging some of these exceptions. Because this is really where we could see movement, or, just even on the state level, for them passing additional laws. You know, that was something mentioned in the presser too, that they were going to encourage states to do this. So I think state level is somewhere to really look, especially … vaccine requirements come down to schools, and those are on a state-by-state level done by [the Department of] Education, not HHS. So that’s where I would be watching. 

Rovner: Yeah, there’s more to come, I suspect, here. Before we leave this, though, I want to talk a little bit about the politics. I mean, Anna, you mentioned this. There were polls that showed that going after vaccines was not very popular with Democrats or Republicans, and that Secretary Kennedy was told earlier this year to focus on other things instead. Why is Trump bringing this up two months before the midterms? I mean, who — what politics is this aimed at? I guess is my question, because I certainly don’t know. 

Edney: From the reporting that I’ve read, and you know, , and Politico. This is just something that Trump himself believes and does not want to let go. He’s talked to the HHS secretary about it time and time again, saying, you know, basically needling him to get on it, even though others have told him not to do that. And so it seems like something that the president really wanted to happen. And just given this discussion we just had, I think it’s pretty evident that most of it is kind of a “We let him do his thing.” He got to talk about it in the Oval Office, and, like, hopefully he’ll shut up about it now, and nothing will actually happen. I think that that is a possibility. 

Rovner: We’ll see if nothing actually happens. But one more thing before we leave the vaccine wars topic, a story from last week that caught my eye: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is also Texas Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton, announced in his AG role that he has opened an investigation into the American Academy of Pediatrics. That’s the group that’s led the charge to preserve the immunization schedule, according to, you know, science. Paxton, in a press release, says his office is looking into “concerns that the organization may be promoting and recommending childhood vaccines for financial gain.” Now, given that most pediatricians lose money on giving vaccines, that feels like a bit of a stretch. Or am I missing something here? 

Goldman: Yeah, I think, what I interpreted from that announcement was, you know, he’s concerned about the organization of AAP, which has some big funders in the pharmaceutical companies. So maybe he’s claiming that the organization is worried they’re going to lose that funding, as opposed to individual pediatricians making money off vaccines. But I think it’s really from AAP’s perspective: damned if you do, damned if you don’t, right? This is something that they have done the science on, looked into, and that’s what their basis is. Be very interesting to see if this actually goes to court and if there’s, you know, a legal argument to be made here. I think this is, like, something that is just starting to unfold. 

Raman: What struck me was it’s similar to what we’ve seen in other areas as well. It’s the same kind of rationale we’ve had going after some of the transgender medical professional groups. You know, saying that they’ve made various recommendations about gender-affirming care for financial gain, and questioning some of those decisions. So in that way it’s not unique, especially since Texas has kind of led the charge on some of those. But I do think it’s interesting that we’re going after some of the same organizations for this again and again. 

Rovner: Yeah, I’m wondering sort of the political benefit for Paxton of going after the American Academy of Pediatrics, but we shall see. All right, speaking of politics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention got a new director this week — at least according to its website; I have not seen that she’s actually been sworn in — a year after its old director was ousted for refusing to rubber-stamp Secretary Kennedy’s handpicked vaccine advisers’ recommendations. Erica Schwartz, a former deputy surgeon general, told the Senate HELP [Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions] Committee during her confirmation hearings that she supports the vaccine schedule and would “never betray the science.” She’s about to get tested on that, isn’t she? 

Raman: I think it was a really interesting choice they didn’t swear her in before they held that event and bring her out there. You know, we did have [Jay] Bhattacharya as the acting official, but they could have easily brought her in there to speak on that, and they didn’t. I think that was a conscious decision. 

Goldman: I was just going to say they waited until she got confirmed. 

Rovner: I would say she got confirmed last week, and the event was on Monday, so they could have sworn her in in time for the event. 

Goldman: Right, they did the event after they confirmed her, but before they swore her in. 

Rovner: Right. 

Goldman: To shore up support in the Senate. 

Rovner: Fair point. Yes, rather than rub it in [Sen. Bill] Cassidy’s face right before he voted to confirm her; that is an excellent point in terms of the timing. Well, meanwhile, things at the CDC are still apparently not great. It’s been almost exactly a year, not just since the last director was ousted, but since a gunman literally shot up the building, killing a security officer because the gunman’s father said he believed that the covid vaccine had made him suicidal. Secretary Kennedy went to visit the CDC campus in Atlanta for a memorial for the officer last week and held a fireside chat with CDC staff, who were, shall we say, not very impressed with his fireside manner. Among other things, according to a transcript of the meeting, he repeated that scientists are not trustworthy. All this comes at a time when CDC is fighting an Ebola outbreak in Africa, several foodborne outbreaks here in the U.S., and the aforementioned spike in vaccine-preventable diseases. It’s not a great time for the CDC, is it? 

Goldman: It’s really not. And there’s a this week by an anonymous CDC staffer that sort of outlines all of the different things that, you know, I’ve even forgotten the CDC has gone through in the last year — thinking about Ebola and funding cuts and just, this person said, that they can still see damage from the bullet holes when they’re sitting in their office it hasn’t been fixed. And you really have to feel for these workers that are trying to do their best but not being given the resources or support to do it. 

Rovner: Yeah, and I will say, you know, after decades of covering the CDC, the people who work for CDC are, you know, among the most mission-driven people in healthcare. I mean, they toil in sort of the, you know, most difficult parts of the healthcare system and are, like, constantly fighting uphill battles and not getting a lot of support, I would suggest, from the current administration. Well, meanwhile, the never-ending Medicaid news keeps on coming. This week, the Trump administration issued final rules banning certain gender-affirming care for minors. Now, this is separate from its rules for hospitals, right, Sandhya? You wrote about this, yes? 

Raman: Yeah. So the rule this time is related to Medicaid for under 18, and for states that also fund the CHIP [Children’s Health Insurance Program], under 19 they would also have to comply with this rule. And kind of what struck me was that we, you know, just on this podcast, I think, maybe a month or so ago there was this, you know, is the administration going to pull this back or not? And there had been reporting saying that they were, and then HHS said, Yes, we are still going ahead with this rule. So indeed, they did. I think this is part of the broader framework, like you said, of different things related to them wanting to emphasize biological sex in their various rulemaking. 

Goldman: Yeah, I think an important distinction about this particular policy is that it strips federal funding, federal Medicaid funding, from states to cover gender-affirming care for minors. So states can still use their own state dollars if they choose to. Private insurance can still cover this, no problem. This is not a ban on gender-affirming care, but it will certainly make things more difficult for children on Medicaid who need this care, want this care. And, especially as states are facing so many other cost pressures, it’s going to be hard to come up with money to patch this hole if they want to do that. 

Rovner: And, to be clear, we’re not talking about surgery here. I mean, we’re talking about all kinds of care, including counseling, right? 

Goldman: Counseling actually is not included in this one. 

Rovner: Oh, OK. 

Goldman: They can still use federal Medicaid funding to cover counseling. 

Rovner: But not other forms of nonsurgical gender-affirming care. 

Goldman: Yes, hormone therapy, puberty blockers, exactly, which are recommended for kids with gender dysphoria by most major medical associations. 

Rovner: Including the aforementioned American Academy of Pediatrics. All right, next in the Medicaid realm: those work requirements that begin next January. We’ve talked at some length about how the federal government is going to give people an extra year to self-attest that they are too sick to work before they have to get proof from a medical professional. But points out that some states aren’t taking that option. Eight Republican-dominated states, including Arkansas, Idaho, Ohio, and Indiana, are declining that grace period and making their work rules even stricter than the administration is otherwise requiring. What’s the likely impact of this? That in January they’re going to have to start proving immediately that they’re either too sick to work or they could lose their Medicaid. 

Edney: Well, I think the, usually, at least the point of doing a rollout, I guess, is giving states time to figure it all out and giving people time to understand what they need to do. So those states are choosing not to do that. So it seems like this could create a lot more chaos than even was anticipated in the first place, and maybe potentially a lot more people coming off the rolls than when maybe they shouldn’t have been, just because of paperwork errors or misunderstandings and things like that. 

Rovner: And much like pediatricians who are worried about having to break up vaccine appointments into multiple appointments, doctors are kind of freaked out about having to see all these patients so they can, you know, write them notes to excuse them from the work requirements, which is another burden that I don’t know that Congress really fully accepted when it was deciding, and the administration was deciding, how to implement these work rules. 

Edney: You know, that’s not something they normally do assess, whether someone can go back to work. So I’m sure they would probably prefer not to be doing that, but if they, you know, without the time and the ability to figure this out, it could be even tougher, and people will be trying to rush to get in there to get this done. 

Rovner: Well, I guess we’ll be watching these as “the early states,” when this all begins. All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We’ll be right back. 

So, the vaccine executive order from the president very much overshadowed what I think HHS Secretary Kennedy had hoped would be the big HHS story this week: the unveiling of proposed new standards for food additives that have been deemed “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS. The rules, which have been a long time coming, as in several administrations long, wouldn’t so much make it harder for companies to use food additives like thickeners and stabilizers that are often seen in highly processed foods, but it would require companies to tell the FDA how it’s using those substances. And it stops well short of what former Republican FDA commissioner David Kessler had been urging in a citizen petition, that he filed more than a year ago, that would have made companies actually prove that those products are safe before they can put them in the food supply. Why are these rules so timid? Isn’t, you know, making the food supply safer Kennedy’s, one of his biggest MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] goals? 

Edney: It seemed to me that the way the FDA put it was that they needed Congress basically to step in to boost their ability maybe to do more. Sometimes that’s an excuse not to do more. Sometimes it really is true that they could really open themselves up to challenges from Big Food and court challenges that they don’t want to fight. And so they do the thing that they think they’re able to, and then tell Congress, you know, we need you to go the rest of the way. 

Rovner: Interesting, because they don’t seem to be afraid of court challenges or, you know, stepping on Congress’ toes on lots of other things. I mean, is this really just emblematic of the power of Big Food? I mean, we’ve already seen, you know, Kennedy be sort of squashed by the power of Big Pesticide. 

Edney: Yeah, I think that that’s absolutely the case — that Big Food, you know, they put their lobbying to work, and they talked about how this could stop them from being able to innovate and being able to get newer things into our food, and that basically we should trust them — what they’re putting in there is safe. And so that has had some sway. Particularly, there have been a lot of industries that have been able to go to the White House and make those cases and kind of water down things that RFK or, like you said, former FDA commissioner [Marty] Makary had said they were going to do. 

Goldman: I’ve also seen some statements from, quote-unquote, “Big Food” lobbying groups arguing that this is an affordability issue. You know, if they have to comply with all these extra rules and regulations and pre-market reviews, that could tank the president’s affordability agenda, is something that I saw. 

Rovner: I would say we’re all still waiting for the new definition of highly processed food, so we will see what that ends up. On another subject regulated by HHS, Secretary Kennedy also announced major action to start the process of decertifying the organ procurement organization that coordinates organ transplants for the region that includes Kentucky and parts of Indiana, Ohio, and West Virginia. OPOs are the go-betweens between medical professionals who care for patients who become organ donors and those who care for the transplant recipients. There’s been a lot of attention to some pretty big failings in the organ transplant network over the past couple of years. This case cites instances where potential donors were not yet dead. That’s a big problem. But you have to wonder if the public is going to wonder whether dramatic action like this is warranted because the OPO really is deficient, or whether it’s political, since we’ve seen this administration going after some states and some organizations for what they say is fraud that looks like it might more be about electoral politics. 

Raman: I think this is a little different. With this organization, Network for Hope, we’ve had a lot of action over the past year or so on this organization in general. We had congressional hearings about it. We had letters from lawmakers with concerns about this, and it’s not the first time that they’ve moved to decertify. You know, there was a division of University of Miami Health System that they decertified last year. Again, documented problems about this, and even if you listen to some of the statements from Democratic lawmakers, they are not against this. I think that, you know, it’s a recognized problem across political lines, which is a little different than some of the issues where fraud is being, you know, viewed more through one lens than another. 

Rovner: There is a point at which HHS is supposed to regulate organizations. I mean … when they find evidence of an organization not doing what it’s supposed to, they’re supposed to take action. That’s kind of how the government works. Sorry. 

Edney: You know, The New York Times has done a lot of great reporting on the organ procurement system and showing many, many flaws. But I think for this one, specifically, when I read about what made HHS look into it, it is shocking and a little scary. So I do understand. You know, what happened was there was a man who overdosed and he wasn’t quite dead, but they were starting the procurement process, and he was waking up. And it just seemed like they kept going on this a little too far. He survived; they didn’t get any organs out of him. But if you sign that form that says you’re an organ donor, it’s not something you want to think about: If something happens to you and you’re not quite dead, that they might decide to go ahead. And then HHS did find that this had happened on many occasions. So I think that it seems like something that the government should have stepped in on. 

Rovner: Yeah, there were some pretty serious deficiencies here. All right, well that is this week’s news, or at least as much as we could get to. Now we’ll play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Paula Andalo, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast my colleague Paula Andalo, who reported and wrote the latest Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News “Bill of the Month.” Hi, Paula. 

Paula Andalo: Hi. How are you? 

Rovner: So this month’s patient is kind of a success story, right? Someone with a nonemergency condition and no health insurance who was nonetheless able to shop around for the best price? Tell us who he is, where he lives, and what kind of care he needed. 

Andalo: Yeah, his name is Ronmel Rangel, and he’s from Venezuela. He moved to the U.S. in 2019 to live with one of [his] daughters that live[s] in Portland, Maine, and he has been living there since. 

Rovner: And then he got sick and needed …  

Andalo: So it was interesting because 25 years ago he had an inguinal hernia and he had surgery in Venezuela. And at the end of last year, he began to feel a pain on the other side of the body. Again, it was a hernia, so he needed surgery. 

Rovner: So he’d been through this before. 

Andalo: Yeah, yeah, in a different health system. So he doesn’t have insurance, although he’s a green-card holder, so he can have insurance. But when he moved here — now he’s 64, so it was six, seven years ago — and he was looking around, you know, the Obamacare and all the stuff. But he realized that for his age, the prices were crazy. He’s a pretty healthy person, so he decided to not have insurance. Instead, he began to see a doctor in a concierge medicine. You know these kind of practices that charge as little as $70 per month to unlimited visits and some small procedures like stitches or …  

Rovner: But not hernia repair. 

Andalo: Not hernia. So at that moment he needed surgery. 

Rovner: Right. So he did the medical tourism thing, looking both here in the U.S. and in some other countries, where he had family that he could stay with. And, a bit surprisingly to me, at least, he found the best price here in the U.S.? 

Andalo: Yeah, it was like a miracle. Yeah, he looked in Oklahoma, but it was far away. Also, he has a daughter living in Santiago, in Chile, and he looked there, and it was very expensive, adding also the cost of traveling to Chile. So, he finally found his place in Maryland. In Rockville, Maryland, in a place called Affordable Surgery Center. He had his procedure in April. 

Rovner: And how much did he end up paying — I guess both for the travel and for the hernia repair? 

Andalo: Well, the first estimate that he had was in his state in a big health system, and at that moment the estimate was $23,000 for a laparoscopic procedure. In this center in Maryland, the total cost, including anesthesia, was $2,900. 

Rovner: Wow. 

Andalo: So, adding the cost of tickets for him and his wife and one night of hotel, etc., it was less than $5,000. 

Rovner: Wow. So that’s a whole lot less, even than he could have gotten at home in Maine. 

Andalo: Yeah, exactly. 

Rovner: So what’s the takeaway here, other than that medical tourism doesn’t have to mean a trip to another country to find the most cost-effective care? 

Andalo: Well, the takeaway is that you can shop around, especially if you have an elective procedure, so you have time. Because if you have an emergency, you don’t have time. But with these kinds of procedures that are pretty common, and there are different options to do it, you can shop around and look for the best place. He had the help of his family doctor — that was very helpful, you know, helping him with lists of places. But he has had time to shop around, to look for prices, and to take care of his hernia. 

Rovner: And I guess it’s important to remember that the most expensive isn’t always the best, but the cheapest also isn’t always the best. 

Andalo: Exactly. So one advice is, the expert says, that you need to look at the reviews of the place and do your homework to realize that if it’s a good place. Although the research says that sometimes higher prices doesn’t mean better care, but in these kinds of procedures, you can pay much less if you shop around. 

Rovner: Well, nice to have a happy ending for a change. Paula Andalo, thank you so much. 

Andalo: Thank you. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. 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 post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Maya, why don’t you go first this week? 

Goldman: Sure. My extra credit this week is an article titled “.” This one is in The New York Times by Mark Arsenault. I am a University of Michigan alum, just like Julie, and so this one caught my eye. But it’s also very interesting to hear what, you know, universities are taking student mental health seriously to the point where they’re making big policy changes or, at least in this case, piloting policy changes to try to get at the root of the problem. I have my own skepticism that this is, you know, the root of the problem. Academic pressures are certainly a big stressor for students adjusting to college, and so maybe this could help. But I think that this is a multifaceted problem, and I’m interested to see how they’re going to measure the success of this. But this isn’t the first university to have done it. There are a couple others: MIT, Brown. The University of Michigan is a massive school with a lot more students, though, so I think it’ll be interesting to see if other schools of that ilk follow suit. 

Rovner: I would just point out that I went to the University of Michigan in the 1970s, and even then we could take classes pass/fail if we wanted to. It’s not really all that new. But yes, I’ve seen a lot of rolled eyes this week about this story. Anna, why don’t you go next? 

Edney: Mine is from CBS News by Julia Ingram: “.” I thought it was a smart thing to look at, that this farm had not been inspected since 2019. And not just that, but that the FDA has been really lagging on all of their foreign food safety inspections, not even meeting 10% of the goal that Congress had set for them about a decade ago. And I thought that was just a great way to get into this story and talk about inspections and how the FDA is struggling. They’ve struggled for a while to meet these kinds of mandates, but showing how it’s now gotten even worse since there have been lots of cuts within the agency. 

Rovner: Yep, that we’ve been talking about, and these are the result of those cuts. Sandhya. 

Raman: My pick this week comes from NOTUS, and it’s from Margaret Manto, and it’s called “.” I am from West Virginia, so was a reason why I was really intrigued by reading this story. But it’s really good. It looks at the work of a pediatrician in the small town of Summersville, and West Virginia has some of the highest childhood vaccine rates in the U.S. And the county where Summersville is has some really high rates compared to some of the more populous counties that are around it. This is a county that voted three times for President Trump. And just looking a lot at the changing climate regarding, you know, vaccination and attitudes there, and, you know, rural health more broadly. 

Rovner: It’s a really good story. Well, my extra credit this week is from the journal Health Affairs by my soon-to-be boss here at KFF, Mollyann Brodie. It’s a to one of her, and my, health policy heroes, Bob Blendon, the Harvard health policy professor who passed away earlier this summer. Molly was lucky enough to have studied under Bob, which I never got to do. But I still feel like one of his students, as he was always so generous with his time and so very quotable, and contributed so much to my personal understanding of the intersection of health policy and politics, which I try to share with all of you every week. We miss Bob already. May his memory be a blessing, and may he live on in those that he taught. 

All right, that is this week’s show. Thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. We also had production help this week from Taylor Cook. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts — as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. 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 , or on Bluesky . Where are you guys hanging these days? Maya? 

Goldman: I’m mostly hanging out on under my name. 

Rovner: Anna? 

Edney: , , @annaedney. 

Rovner: Sandhya. 

Raman: I’m on and on @SandhyaWrites. 

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

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. And, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Aug. 6, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: And my Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleague Amanda Seitz. 

Amanda Seitz: Hi, great to be here. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have excerpts of my “How Would You Fix It?” interview with New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim, who’s proposing universal coverage starting with all American children. But first, the freight train of health news continues. 

We’re going to start this week in Michigan with that very closely watched Senate primary to fill the seat being vacated by the retiring Democrat Gary Peters. We’ve known for months the Republican candidate will be former congressman Mike Rogers, who narrowly lost to Sen. Elissa Slotkin two years ago. And now we know he will face Abdul El-Sayed, an MD epidemiologist and former public health director of Detroit. El-Sayed, who ran on a platform emphasizing “Medicare for All” and has even written a book about it, narrowly defeated four-term Democratic congresswoman Haley Stevens, who had a gigantic cash advantage, mostly provided by supporters of Israel. Now, the fight over Israel in Gaza is for some other podcast to get into, but I do think that this underscores the increasing popularity of Medicare for All in the base of the Democratic Party. What does El-Sayed’s primary win tell us? And can someone from the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party win in a very purple state like Michigan? 

Ollstein: Well, I also want to point out, like, this isn’t an outlier. It was really notable to me that during the Maine rushed, redo primary they just had for the Democratic Senate candidate to take on Susan Collins, everyone in that race was endorsing Medicare for All and calling for it. And Maine is also a very purple state with an older electorate, and, you know, not raging progressive. And so I think it is notable that this isn’t just in the big blue cities anymore. This is a growing drumbeat within the party, and, you know, of course it comes as we’re seeing a lot of people lose their health insurance, which we’re going to talk about. We’re seeing costs go way up, and so there’s just this wellspring of frustration that I think is fueling some of this. 

Seitz: Oh, I was just going to say I would caution, though, how big of a win this is for progressive Democrats. You know, they’ve won the battle, and I’ll say it has built quite a strong coalition. But this was a really narrow primary win, and that is not the situation you want to be in when you have two diametrically opposed candidates from the same party running in a primary in a very purple state headed into the midterm elections. 

Rovner: Yeah, well, let us talk a little bit more about Medicare for All because it’s a trendy moniker for something that’s not really all that specific. Some people think it’s just shorthand for “everyone gets government-provided health insurance.” Some think it’s actually socialized medicine. And some think it’s literally just an extension of today’s Medicare program, which is itself a very public-private hybrid. My friend Jonathan Cohn over at The Bulwark, who happens to live in Michigan, has a  that I will link to about how consideration of Medicare for All looks different in 2026 than it did in 2016 or even in 2009, when they were doing the Affordable Care Act. Where do you guys think we are on Medicare for All? I would remind that what was in the 2020 campaign, every candidate, every Democratic running except for Joe Biden said they were for Medicare for All, and yet Joe Biden is the one that came out of the primaries. 

Kenen: I think Kamala Harris was for “Medicare for All Who Wanted It.” She had some strange hybrid of it, but that is part of our past. I mean, Medicare for All is something you hear about from the Democratic Party, a segment of the Democratic Party, in pretty much every election with more or less intensity. And more so [with] Bernie Sanders running against Hillary [Clinton], it was a much more pronounced debate. In Michigan, I don’t think this is the defining issue. I mean, I think that global politics in the Middle East, and given the demographics of Michigan, and what the race is focused on, and points of contention are, it’s pretty easy to talk about wanting everybody to be covered, and it’s a lot harder to get there, as we all know, because we’ve been talking about it for decades. So I think you’ll hear about it from Democrats â€” I’m not sure in Michigan and elsewhere, but I’m not sure how specific a plan or a definition it is, sort of this holy grail that nobody knows quite what it looks like. 

Ollstein: But that also makes sense. I mean, it’s not really in their interest to put out detailed policy plans that people can pick apart at this phase of things. And so it makes sense that we’re in the grand, sweeping, dreams phase of things, and not in the â€¦ 

Rovner: We’re in the slogan phase. 

Ollstein: Exactly, exactly right. Because, you know, as soon as Democrats put out an actual bill, a draft bill, then the vultures will descend and point out all the downsides, and that doesn’t help them heading into, you know, a major midterm election. So we imagine that work is going on behind the scenes, because they want to have something ready to go if and when they have control in Congress. But what exactly that is, we don’t know. 

Kenen: But I also think there’s pressure for the Democrats to be â€” in the best-case scenario, if you had a united Democratic Party where they all wanted Medicare for All and they all agreed on what that meant, you don’t press a button and get there. It would be some kind of incremental phase, and it’s not going to be, like, OK, today we have this and tomorrow we have Medicare for All. So I think, in the short term, less controversial and maybe more urgent is affordability and access right this minute. We are going to talk about the coverage decline and affordability and just access on a day-to-day … even if you are able to afford your care and even if you have pretty good insurance, getting into a doctor when you need to has become really frustrating. Even if you’re sick and already know that doctor. So even if you’re a pretty health-savvy consumer, the way all of us are, we see this in our friends and family, and we understand the system â€” sort of, like “the system” in quotes. So I mean, I think there’s the Medicare for All, you know, Democratic dream, and it â€” I don’t mean it’s not sincere; I mean, that’s what many people want â€” but I also think you’re going to see a lot more nuts and bolts: What has happened in the last two years, and how do we fix it? 

Rovner: I’m interested in the fact that Republicans who are already sort of ginning up their talking points against the, you know, wave of progressive candidates like El-Sayed, although he’s not as progressive as, you know, the [Zohran] Mamdanis and, you know, some of the other avowed socialists. They’re talking about socialism and communism, and they’re talking about all kinds of things. They don’t seem to be talking about healthcare, which suggests to me that Republicans are kind of aware that things are not going well, and that, Joanne, as you point out, I mean, you know, it used to be let’s see if we can fix the health system without messing up the people who are happy. There are fewer and fewer people who are happy right now with how the health system is falling apart. 

Kenen: Including the doctors, right?  

Rovner: Right. Oh, absolutely. 

Kenen: Nobody’s happy. 

Rovner: Well, well, let us move on to all of the ways in which the healthcare system is falling apart. Item one is a new Gallup-West Health poll that found nearly a quarter of workers surveyed said they were staying in a current job that they otherwise wanted to leave only to retain their health insurance. That was up 8 percentage points since the last time they’d asked in 2021. Now “job lock,” as this is called, is something that HIPAA was supposed to address back in 1996. The “P” in HIPAA stands for Portability. It was the Health Insurance Portability [and Accountability] Act. How is this still a thing 30 years later, that people feel stuck because they can’t change health insurance? 

Ollstein: This was also a big driving force behind the argument for Obamacare. The argument was: We’re going to free up all these people by creating this individual market, we’re going to unleash American ingenuity, and we’re going to have entrepreneurs and people starting their own businesses and experimenting and trying things that they wouldn’t feel able to do because they’re so afraid of â€¦  

Rovner: Shark Tank for All! 

Ollstein: â€¦ losing their health insurance. And so I think the way the Trump administration has targeted some key pieces of Obamacare, you know, they obviously, as we know, failed to get rid of the whole thing, but they are chipping away at the subsidies, which has caused a lot of people to drop their coverage; they’re going after the Medicaid expansion piece of Obamacare, and so I think that’s driving some of this return to, you know, clinging to the job you have in order to maintain your health insurance. Although, going back to the point that nobody’s happy, employer health insurance, while it may be better than a lot of the other options, is, you know, people aren’t thrilled either. The costs are still quite high for both employers and employees. 

Rovner: And employers are looking for ways to cut back. Go ahead, Joanne. 

Kenen: I was also wondering, as I read those numbers about job lock â€” and we should also remember, even though it wasn’t in that particular story, there’s also something called “marriage lock,” where people stay in marriages they don’t really want to be in because they wouldn’t have, they fear they wouldn’t have coverage. But one thing I just sort of wondered about is I wonder how many people realize that they might, in fact, qualify for the Affordable Care Act. I think people are still confused about the ACA, as well as they’re confused about a whole laundry list of things that we could spend a year talking about. People aren’t always paying attention, so some of the people who are afraid that if they change jobs or think they have to stay in their job think that Obamacare is for somebody else. So I don’t know. 

Rovner: They wrongly think they’re in job lock. 

Kenen: Right, right. So, but it still affects the behavior. If you feel that way â€” you’re anxious and insecure and unhappy â€” then you’re anxious, insecure, and unhappy. Whether you are aware of there’s an alternative or not, it doesn’t affect how you feel now, which is, you know, grumpy. That’s not the right word, but you know what I mean. 

Rovner: I know what you mean. 

Seitz: Yeah, well, and I think that that’s what I found fascinating, too, is like when we look back at 2022, there was a lot of head-scratching as to how Democrats performed so well in the midterm elections. But you look back at that time, and people â€”it was the peak of the Great Resignation â€” people were leaving their jobs. They were able to get big raises for the first time in a while. Unemployment was extremely low, so you had, like, an electorate that was pretty happy and didn’t have that anxiety. And now you’re staring down a situation where people are afraid to leave their jobs. They’re afraid to lose their health insurance, and the social safety net is deteriorating at the behest of the Trump administration. And I think that’s not a very good situation to have a lot of Americans in, as you head to a midterm election. 

Rovner: Well, item two: Several outlets, , reported last week that hospital systems are seeing what the Times’ Reed Abelson described as, quote, an “unexpectedly sharp rise in uninsured patients and the costs associated with treating them.” We are starting to hear this in earnings reports from for-profit chains and anecdotally from nonprofits. Now, this was something that we saw coming. People can no longer afford their ACA plans and drop them, or as they can no longer afford the premiums without the expanded subsidies and had to buy down to less-generous plans with larger deductibles, which they then can’t cover when they end up in the hospital. This would suggest the Trump administration’s claim that the drop in ACA coverage is all due to fraudulently enrolled people with zero claims might not actually be the case. 

Seitz: I question how much, like, the Trump administration realizes they’re playing with fire here. And I think in part because during the first Trump administration, you saw a few hundred thousand people disenroll from the ACA. They kind of let it to languish, but there was also a lot of question about the ACA marketplaces’ ability to survive. This time around is so much different. You’re talking about millions of people losing coverage within the first year. The Trump administration came in; they had record enrollment in the program. So these are real losses. These are real hospitals, and these are going to be real headlines of real people experiencing these real misfortunes. And you’re going to have either taxpayers eating the cost of the care through emergency Medicaid, or you’re going to have people winding up with really big medical bills that they can’t pay. And again, those are going to be real stories. And the Trump administration is going to find that they can’t just continue to yell fraud to cover all that up. 

Ollstein: Yeah, to Amanda’s point, I think this message could definitely backfire politically. Nobody likes to be told that they are a fraudster or don’t exist when they are losing their health insurance. And this is hitting red-state hospitals just as much as blue states, if not more. And so, I think going into the midterm election, sticking by this line and not admitting who is being harmed is definitely risky. 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s worth pointing out that, I mean, it does hit red states harder because the red states that didn’t expand Medicaid ended up with bigger enrollment in the ACA when they expanded the subsidies â€¦ 

Seitz: Florida’s the biggest. 

Rovner: â€¦ and so those people are now losing coverage. Yeah, Florida, Georgia, Texas. Those are the places where the hospitals are going to see it first when people are showing up who can’t pay their bills. 

Kenen: And those are the states that already have a lot of rural hospital closures. There are rural hospital closures and hospital closures across the country, but the rate of closures is much more acute in the states that did not expand Medicaid. So now you’re going to have more hospitals in jeopardy. It is not a healthy situation. 

Rovner: Well, related to this, we have the impending cuts to Medicaid. A federal judge appointed by Bill Clinton declined to block the Medicaid work rules from taking effect as scheduled Jan. 1. This was in a lawsuit filed by Democrat-led states. But there could still be some delay, right? I know doctor groups are completely freaked out by having to potentially write notes for tens of thousands of patients who may or may not be too medically frail to work. There’s still a lot of sort of panic, if you will, in the states about what’s going to happen to people if they can’t meet these work requirements. 

Ollstein: Yeah, and I want to make sure people know that the judge [who] ruled in this case, he said you shouldn’t take this ruling to mean that I think the states are wrong in challenging this policy. They could very well prevail eventually and strike it down. He just said, basically, this isn’t ripe. You don’t have enough evidence right now of harm to the states because the policy hasn’t officially started yet. Although it has in a couple states that weren’t part of the lawsuit, which we can get into. But this particular piece of the story is not over. Also, people should know that what was being challenged in court was not the entirety of the work requirements; it was just the piece requiring sick people on Medicaid to prove that they are too sick to work, prove beyond just having a diagnosis of cancer or an autoimmune disease or something. Just the diagnosis is not enough; they have to have some kind of proof. It’s not totally clear what kind of proof will count. And, to your point, they’re worried that it’s going to end up being individual doctors’ notes, which will completely overwhelm the system. Doctors don’t have the capacity to see all these people to document this and provide care. 

Rovner: And doctors don’t have the training to determine, you know, who’s disabled and who isn’t. That’s why we have these, you know, special masters for disability programs. Your average doctor is not really in a position to say, “Well, so-and-so can work this month but not next month.” Really, I mean, doctor groups really are legitimately worried about that this is going to fall to them. 

Kenen: And also, like, an awful lot of the people on Medicaid who would be affected â€¦ this is the Medicaid expansion population. It’s not all of Medicaid. But a lot of this population has chronic disease. And chronic disease is often sort of on and off, right? You’re doing OK for a while. You can work, and then kaboom, you have an exacerbation. You have a setback. You have an episode. Whatever your disease is, there are different things that happen, and then you can’t work. And doctors don’t know â€” I mean, mental illness is clearly one of the things where people could be stable for a long time and then crash and then recover and stabilize again. Cancer, you can be doing fine, on chemo for a certain amount of time, and then your body just says, you know, I’ve had enough chemicals pumped into it. Or you have â€¦ every chronic disease is pretty much â€¦ every one I can think of is an up-and-down, on-and-off â€¦ like how bad do you feel or how good you feel at any given time. And they certainly don’t have â€” then you’re out of compliance. You know, well, you’re healthy enough to work. Why aren’t you working? You know, bye-bye healthcare. So it’s really a complicated mess. The only little thing that may buy the states some time, in addition to whatever happens in the court, is for the first year and only the first year, people will be allowed to self-attest, meaning I’m just going up and saying I’m, you know, here’s my diagnosis, and I’m too sick to work. That is not likely to be extended. It’s unclear how that will play. I’ve written about it in somewhat detail about one state. I’m not exactly sure how it’ll run out in all 50, but it is part of the current rule that, this controversial rule that was dropped on June 1, that made this all sort of more complicated and more difficult. That self-attestation would be available on Jan. 1 for a limited period of time. 

Ollstein: But not in every state. So CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services], the federal government, said states can accept self-attestation. Several states are saying no thanks. We’re going to start requiring proof right away. No self-attestation allowed. So this is yet another sort of natural experiment where we’re going to see, you know, the differences between these states with these different policies, and how many people lose coverage as a result. 

Kenen: But it’s going to be way more than we thought at the beginning. I mean, the difference in this medical frailty rule versus what CMS was telling states until a few weeks ago versus, kaboom, on June 1, it is a much more cumbersome process. I mean, nobody thinks the old estimates of coverage loss are accurate anymore. I mean, there’s always a lot of guesswork in that, right? None of us know exactly how many people will lose coverage, but it looks like a lot more than we thought. 

Rovner: So we already have one of these natural experiments going on in Nebraska, which volunteered to implement its work rules first. The state is now getting ready to disenroll the first Medicaid patients who have failed to meet the requirements. Clearly, some of those people are still eligible, including a pregnant woman reported on by Nebraska Public Media who showed up for an appointment and was denied coverage because apparently the state missed the fact that she was pregnant and therefore eligible. I imagine we’re expecting more of this, right, Alice? We’ve seen this movie before? 

Ollstein: Yes, so we’re getting a sneak preview in Nebraska of what could happen in the rest of the states that expanded Medicaid come Jan. 1. A couple other states are also starting early, although they have different rules about when the penalties kick in and when the enforcement kicks in. But yes, you know we’re seeing a lot of confusion, people losing coverage who are technically eligible for coverage, and basically everything that providers and community groups and patient advocates predicted would happen. 

Kenen: And we know from Georgia, which does have work requirements already, they’re not a full-expansion state. They have their own version of a partial expansion, but it’s still, the law still applies to them. And they’ve had a lot of people losing coverage who probably are still eligible. We know from Arkansas’ experiment in, I believe was 2018, tons of people â€” I think it was 17,000 or 18,000 â€” who lost coverage, and most of them actually qualify. In fairness, the technology since 2018 and 2027 â€¦ and learning from Arkansas’ mistakes. â€¦ I think it’s important to be aware of how flawed and problematic Arkansas was. I don’t think it necessarily means that everything will be exactly that bad because, you know, there’s more broadband access in rural America, etc. We don’t have to go into all that. But it’s not a great precedent in terms of smooth rollouts. 

Seitz: And we also know it from the Medicaid unwind during the pandemic, too. We saw these errors and the initial estimates of how many people would be removed from coverage after the federal government said, OK, you can’t allow continuous enrollment anymore. They blew past those initial estimates. So, to your point, Joanne, earlier about how we are going to see much greater disenrollment than was initially predicted.  

Rovner: All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back. 

We are back, turning to abortion. Alice, you were part of a  about U.S. Attorney General nominee Todd Blanche and something he promised to anti-abortion groups. Tell us what he said. 

Ollstein: Yes, so this was on a private call that the White House Faith Office did with what they said were thousands of faith leaders around the country. And they, you know, said over and over on this call, this is private, this is off the record, this is not for the news, and then they posted it on YouTube for some reason and on some other places online. Explain that. Anyways, it’s been taken down since our story published, but we have the audio saved. So Blanche was basically promising that not only would he take action to restrict mail delivery of abortion pills and curbing abortion access in other ways, if confirmed, he sort of went beyond that and said that policies are already in the works. There’s already discussions going on between the White House, DOJ [Department of Justice], FDA, all of these different agencies sort of pledged to stop the ability of patients in red states to order abortion pills online and get them delivered by mail, which is, you know, a key line of access that patients have turned to in this post-Roe era of bans. It was not clear from the audio that we obtained how he plans to go about doing that. I also imagine if, you know, the FDA does come out and change its policy, that his remarks could be used to challenge that and say, you know, this was not based on science. This was based on ideology and religious opposition to abortion, which is not what the FDA is supposed to base its drug access policies on. So this was really fascinating, particularly because it did not really jive with what he said publicly in his confirmation hearing, where he sort of hemmed and hawed and said, “Oh, I can’t speak to that because there’s ongoing litigation,” and sort of made â€” yes, this was more specific promise of action than we’ve heard from him publicly. 

Rovner: And just to be clear, I think I have this right: Even if the FDA doesn’t change its policy, the DOJ could decide We’re going to enforce the Comstock Act â€” that 1873 law that bans the mailing of abortion drugs. And that would sort of leave FDA out of the entire equation, right? I mean, in theory, he could do that. 

Ollstein: Yes, and a lot of anti-abortion activists are very frustrated that the administration has not done that yet. They could have done that a year ago, theoretically put out a new OLC memo. Of course … 

Rovner: OLC, the Office of Legal Counsel. 

Ollstein: Yeah, which the Biden administration used to say that the Comstock Act cannot be used for cracking down on mail delivery of abortion pills. Of course, even if that happened â€” and there’s no sign that that’s necessarily imminent or something the administration would want to do ahead of the midterms potentially â€” but, you know, I think it’s notable to ask: How would they enforce that? This is private mail going to people’s private homes â€” short of mass surveillance and looking at everyone’s mail. I mean, logistically and constitutionally, it raises a lot of questions. 

Rovner: It does. Well, and now Sen. Susan Collins has cited it as one of the reasons that she’s going to vote against Blanche’s confirmation. Although I will quickly add that once Susan Collins announces she’s voting against something controversial, that usually means Republicans already have the votes they need and can let her go. â€¦ I see nodding. Do we think that’s the case here? 

Kenen: She’s always in tight races. For the past 30 years, she’s won. But you know, Maine is really obviously in play this year. None of us have a good enough crystal ball to know how this plays out. But the issue for her, in many ways, is just her [Supreme Court Justice Brett] Kavanaugh confirmation vote. So anything she does seen as further eroding abortion could really tip the election for her. So I’m not positive that this goes through. I think it’s likely, but [Sen. Bill] Cassidy, I don’t believe, has said what he’s going to do. [Sen. Lisa] Murkowski hasn’t said â€¦ if someone has more recent information, please update me. But my understanding …  

Rovner: As of this morning, Cassidy and Murkowski are still holdouts. 

Kenen: Right. And I’m not 100%, even though [Sen. John] Cornyn and [Sen. Thom] Tillis got him out of committee, they’re watching. They’re seeing, you know, what’s going on. Abortion is not the issue for them, but the weaponization, you know, what did he really mean by, you know, does his memo really stop it? What else are they going to do? I don’t think this is a done deal, as opposed to getting closer to being a done deal. But there’s no question that Collins had to vote against this. 

Rovner: We will see. All right. Well, over at the Department of Health and Human Services, things continue to be messy, which is also the description of an interview that Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. gave to CNN’s Dana Bash on Sunday. Here’s how my colleague . I don’t think I can improve on this. “This morning, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sat down with Dana Bash on CNN’s State of the Union, and for 20 minutes it went about the way you’d expect. Both of them raised their voices, each accused the other of attacking them. He told her she’d committed press malpractice and that scaring people was the job of CNN. She told him he was causing inaccurate information to circulate. By 9:20 a.m. they were calling each other parrots.” By the way, this week saw publication of yet another large-scale study, 2.5 million children large, that found no association between autism and the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. But it raises the broader question: Does giving the secretary a mainstream platform like this actually make the media complicit in spreading the misinformation that he likes to spew? 

Ollstein: Things like this are such a Rorschach test because you had everyone on the left describing it as a crash out and, you know, a meltdown and something that made the secretary look really terrible, and you had people on the right who support him sharing it widely and saying, “Oh, he really gave it to the evil mainstream media.” And so, in terms of, you know, value to the public, I’m not sure. 

Seitz: I think you’re totally right, Alice. But what was really revealing is we have a health secretary who could not articulate what his plan is for any sort of outbreak, as there are multiple infectious disease outbreaks exploding throughout the country. And the one thing that he said he would do repeatedly was he would listen to doctors. Well, doctors on the front line of emergency rooms are saying, We are overwhelmed with measles. We are overwhelmed with infectious disease. Please, promote vaccines more. Please get your children vaccinated. So I think that was really just revealing. And again, it’s really troubling to see because everyone’s going to walk away from that conversation viewing it one way or the other, and not agreeing on anything, it seems. 

Rovner: Yeah, I will say, I mean, I watched it live. It was hard to watch. I don’t think it covered anybody with any kind of glory. Well, earlier this morning, speaking of breaking news, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted to hold former NIH [National Institutes of Health] institute director and White House science adviser Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress for pleading the Fifth, rather than answering their questions at a hearing last week. As former Trump surgeon general Jerome Adams quipped on X: “Your healthcare costs are exploding and the entire U.S. financing system is collapsing in real time… Meanwhile Congress is spending more energy debating whether to lock up an 85-year-old over his private journal entries about Barbra Streisand. Priorities.” At the same time, Politico is reporting that a top candidate for Fauci’s old job, running the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is a pharma executive who co-authored a book arguing that covid came from a lab leak and that fact was covered up by U.S. scientists. Steven Quay, who’s the nominee, has no training in infectious disease and was not selected for an interview by NIH staff for the NIAID job, but was instead handpicked by RFK Jr. Institute directors, I would hasten to add, are not usually political positions, unlike the director of NIH as a whole. So, what does this all suggest? 

Kenen: More of the same and worse. The Fauci situation is mind-boggling, even to people whose minds are now frequently boggles. Right? It’s â€¦ I think it’s safe to guess that he regrets writing certain things down on a government computer. And now they’ve got his phone. Sen. Johnson has his phone â€¦ or a copy of what his phone is. So I don’t know what’s going to come out about that, and how it will be interpreted. Remember that the measures that people are so angry about, several years later, were actually done during the Trump administration. They were not implemented by Biden. The national rules set at the, you know, the “six weeks to stop the spread” — that was Trump. Later regulations about opening restaurants and so forth, and other businesses and schools, and schools being the most contentious â€” churches are also contentious â€” that was done at the state level. Anthony Fauci did not go around the country locking churches. So public health made mistakes. But what people are forgetting about is that public health made mistakes dealing with a completely unprecedented and extremely complicated disease, which we still don’t understand all the sequel, all the stuff that people are still dealing with post-covid, right? And under emergency circumstances, in a politically volatile environment. And what we’re also forgetting is mistakes were made on the other side too. People were spreading quote-unquote “facts” that harmed people, that killed people. … I don’t mean they went out and murdered people, but things that led to unnecessary and avoidable deaths. So the whole debate, I mean, you can tell I’m â€” I’ll stop. Tony Fauci was not single-handedly making every decision, and the people trying to make public health decisions in a difficult environment were doing their best to save lives. And â€¦ it doesn’t matter what he said about Barbra Streisand. 

Rovner: And I would just add that it is Congress’ job to do things like examine the mistakes that were made and how things could have been done better, how communication could have been better. And I feel like, you know, Congress is just is so busy finding a scapegoat that it is not doing what could be a really useful exercise in an after-action report. Because there will be another pandemic, and, you know as we’ve said, we are having smaller-scale public health emergencies even as we speak, and nobody is dealing with it well. 

All right, moving on. Finally, this week, the House has decamped for its August recess, but the Senate is still here on Capitol Hill, trying to get a pretty ambitious list of things passed before it leaves at the end of the week, starting with a continuing resolution to keep the government open when the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1. The House passed a CR to run until after the midterms before it left in July. The Senate’s CR is similar with one big change that we have actually discussed lately. It would block, at least temporarily, a controversial rule from the Office of Management and Budget that would further politicize the grant-making process by allowing political appointees to decide whether individual grants conform to the president’s agenda. Can this get back through the House, assuming the Senate passes it when the House comes back in September? Or is this going to come down to the wire and we’re going to have a fight over it as we approach Oct. 1? 

Kenen: Well, the other question that some researchers, you know, when I when I talk to some people about, well, they â€” and remember they’re not killing this rule; they’re halting its implementation. 

Rovner: They’re delaying it, right? 

Kenen: Right. You know, one of the scientists’ first response was, “Yeah, well, just because Congress passes a law doesn’t mean the administration will respect it.” There are other ways to politicize, and I mean, they’ve been cutting funding and stopping grants and virtually shutting down agencies. Science has already been hurt. So whatever happens in the House, which, and I think Julie is right, I don’t think they just come back and say, “OK, we’re going to just agree.” I think there’ll be some kind of fight â€” how it fits into other trade-offs between the House and the Senate. And there are things other than health that we don’t pay as much attention to that are also out there, including a couple of wars. So yes, there’ll be some fighting about it. No, we don’t know how it turns out. But at the end of the day, if the administration really wants to further politicize an already politicized grant-making process, they will probably find a way of doing so. 

Rovner: Well, speaking of which, the administration has figured out other ways to effectively gut programs. Case in point: Head Start, which is a bipartisanly popular preschool education, nutrition, and healthcare program for low-income kids, just this morning, HHS is dropping new rules that would basically eliminate many of the required standards for Head Start programs, including things like teacher-to-student ratios. This administration is nothing if not creative, because this is not â€” you know, last year they were delaying the money going out for Head Start. Now they’re just going to say, Well, we’re just going to take away the rules, and you can sort of take this money and do whatever you want. Amanda, you’re nodding. 

Seitz: Yeah. Well, I found this really striking because I was with Secretary Kennedy a few months ago at a Head Start in Toledo, [Ohio], where he talked about the importance of the program, that it was inspired by his uncle, and he he said he really stood up against the White House to make sure â€¦ it was still funded last year, and he demanded that. And the other thing that really struck me about that visit is the Head Start’s owner had flown in from New York in this tailored suit to take photos with Kennedy and greet him personally. And I was a little confused why this person from New York is owning this Head Start. And it turns out a lot of private equity firms have been buying up daycares across the country, and this was the case for this Head Start. So, you know, pulling back the regulations of Head Start around class sizes â€” that seems like it would benefit more the private equity firms than the teachers and the children in the classrooms. 

Rovner: Fancy that! All right. Well, finally, finally, one of the things the Senate has managed to do this week is confirm Erica Schwartz as the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That agency has been operating without a Senate-confirmed head since the departure of Susan Monarez last August, just weeks after she had been confirmed over differences with Secretary RFK Jr. over vaccine policy. How confident are we that Dr. Schwartz, who is a retired rear admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and a self-proclaimed vaccine supporter, will last longer than her predecessor? 

Seitz: I think that is a huge question. I mean, we’re now on our third CDC nominee of this administration, second confirmed candidate, and we know that Secretary Kennedy and Susan Monarez never really got along. It was not, she was not his first choice. That has been made very clear with Schwartz as well, when he said that he was not even consulted really about the pick. So I think the big question is: Can these two work together, and how quickly will that potentially deteriorate? 

Rovner: Yeah, well, the clock is about to start. I guess as soon as she is sworn in. â€¦ She was just confirmed on Wednesday, so I don’t think she’s been sworn in yet. Alice, you want to add something? 

Ollstein: Yeah, I did think it was interesting, though. On Capitol Hill, you heard from some senators that, you know, they did have concerns about her ability to stand up to RFK and advocate for evidence-based medicine science, you know, particularly on the vaccine front. But because there hasn’t been a leader at this crucial agency for a year now, they wanted to vote to confirm her just for some stability and some leadership. I mean, look, we’ve got diarrhea lettuce, we’ve got salmonella eggs, we’ve got measles. We’ve got a lot of problems, and it’s never a great time to not have a leader of the CDC, but right now is really not a good time to not have a leader of the CDC. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think that’s what Tim Kaine of Virginia, a Democrat, said. I think he was the only Democrat that voted for her. More important to have somebody at the CDC leading it. 

All right, that is this week’s news, or as much of this week’s news as we could get to. Now we’ll play my “How Would You Fix It?” interview with New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim. Then we’ll come back with our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim to “How Would You Fix It?” Sen. Kim’s a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and just introduced legislation to guarantee health coverage to every child up to age 26. Sen. Kim, welcome. 

Andy Kim: Yeah, thanks for having me. It’s a pleasure. 

Rovner: As I hope this series is highlighting, it appears the country is moving, albeit kind of slowly, towards another major debate over healthcare coverage and cost. What made you decide to step into these very choppy political waters? 

Kim: Well, first of all, I’ll say it is because of healthcare that I ran for Congress to start with. So, you know, eight years ago or so, when I first started running, it was because I had a little baby boy who had some real health issues right there as he was born, and I was one of those very scared, anxious parents trying to figure out what kind of care could my kid get. Meanwhile, we saw a debate in Congress where the Republican-led Congress in 2017 was trying to gut the Affordable Care Act. So that was why I actually got engaged in politics, [because] my congressman was leading that charge on trying to cut preexisting condition protections.  

The other aspect of this is right now things are just moving in the wrong direction. We have upwards of, you know, 1.75 million to 2 million more kids losing Medicaid over the last year and a half. We see the numbers already atrocious. You know, 4.4 million children in this country without health insurance, 23 million kids that are underinsured, which means they have coverage that doesn’t cover their full needs. I’m appalled by that. I’ll be honest with you. Like, you know, we’re the richest, most powerful country in the world. I’m here at the Capitol, where we’re right now having these debates about, you know, a $1.5 trillion defense budget and other things that, you know, just are pushing forward. Yet we are just for some reason just OK with, or at least just allowing this type of void when it comes to our healthcare. I just find it to be â€” I mean, just appalling and a real dereliction of our duty that we have not found a way to be able to ensure that every child is able to go see a doctor when they need to without breaking the bank. So I think, for me, this has just been years in the making, and right now I wanted to introduce this because I can’t just be talking about what I’m against. I have to be talking about what I’m for. What is the vision for this country? Not just to reverse things that I think are wrong from what this administration has done, but I owe it to my constituents and to the American people to lay out a vision forward for us to try to think through where we go from here. 

Rovner: So, how would this bill work? 

Kim: First of all, the bill is called MediKids. So, as you said, it would be a guarantee of healthcare from birth to 26. I think one of the more novel parts of this that is different from what we see right now is that there’s an automatic enrollment upon birth into MediKids, which is a foundation built upon Medicaid. So the idea right now is we’re seeing so many kids and families losing Medicaid or potentially losing Medicaid in part because of just the onerous paperwork, the bureaucracy, the different types of things that are meant right now, just the twice-annual requirements to be able to recertify. That’s what’s standing in the way here and preventing so much of the progress that we need. So I wanted to really tackle that and be able to make sure that people can be able to get the care that they need.  

And another part of it is that I chose to put the platform upon Medicaid because Medicaid, in many ways, was designed for kids. You know, when it comes to the early and periodic screenings and diagnostics and treatment, that whole system is, as I’ve looked at it, really the most comprehensive system for kids. What healthcare experts have really shared with me over the years, as I taught talk them, is we can’t just think of kids as little adults. But instead, like, having a system that is designed for kids, that is designed to be able to have the screenings at the appropriate times and age intervals, to be able to have that requirement, to be able to treat any and all problems that are determined, and to think about this as comprehensively â€” not just like healthcare here, dental and vision, but to think about it across all of it. All of that is necessary for kids because their bodies are developing, their brains are developing well into their 20s, which is why, again, I pushed meta kids out into the 20s. It’s like you want to make sure that all of these kids are able to get the care that they need, and that you don’t see the kind of withdrawal of or restriction of care that could have real consequences down the road. So that’s really what we were trying to do. 

Rovner: So, as you well know, Democrats have been fighting for decades now over whether to try for a really comprehensive overhaul of the nation’s healthcare system or something more incremental. Obviously, the Affordable Care Act was something more incremental, but also fairly comprehensive. Is that how you envision this? Where do you fall on the “Let’s pull it up and start over from scratch,” and the “Let’s try to fix it one step at a time” debate? 

Kim: Well, yeah. Well, look, I want to be bold, and I want something that can really push forward. Because look, I’ll be honest: The American people want something bold. Like, the problems that we are facing are enormous. No one is happy with the status quo, so we need to have that change. But I was also thinking through how to design something that I think will have enormous impact upon healthcare, but doing it in a way that is implementable. You know, so with MediKids, I’m not creating some new bureaucracy. I’m not creating some new agency or new department. I am taking something that is already, frankly, covering a large percentage of children in this country already, and I’m trying to make it available for everybody through that automatic enrollment, and taking something that is proven to be able to have that comprehensive approach and use that as a foundation. I really tried to design this in a way that is implementable. As I’ve been in Congress now for eight years, I see the types of bills that can get through parliamentarians and get through into passage, and I’ve really tried to design something that hits that sweet spot while still fundamentally reshaping how healthcare in this country will be attained by people. And I really do think that it will have a sizable impact tremendously. Not just in terms of providing that care for kids, but everyone knows healthier kids means healthier adults, which means a healthier workforce, which means a stronger economy, which means lower healthcare costs. The knock-on effects are so strong. So many of the challenges that we see amongst adults when it comes to chronic illnesses and other challenges are often things that have been exacerbated because of the lateness of diagnosis or the lack of treatment early on. So those are the things that we’re really trying to think through when it comes to this approach. 

Rovner: Back in 1994, when the Bill Clinton plan went down, the first big health reform that I covered, there was an effort, mostly spearheaded by Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, that they called “Kids First.” They said, well, let’s just cover kids. It still took three years, a lot of fighting, and sort of they luckily found a tobacco tax to help pay for it. But it was bipartisan. Do you have any thoughts that Republicans are going to maybe have some renewed interest in increasing healthcare coverage? 

Kim: Well, what I will say is, first of all, if ever there was an issue that should be bipartisan or, frankly, nonpartisan, it should be about our kids, right? And that’s why I wanted to focus on this too. I think it’s the strongest argument that we have in our country when it comes to guaranteed healthcare. I get it, eyes wide open, I was on the Senate floor last year when I saw my colleagues vote to cut Medicaid at such a dangerous level, so I have my eyes wide open. But what I will say is, I’ve gone around the Senate over the last period of time, like the last two weeks since I’ve introduced, is that it is sparking that conversation. And whether or not my colleagues on the other side of the aisle or both sides of the aisle agree with all the different principles and proposals that I have in MediKids, it is creating this dialogue and this debate about healthcare for our kids. And that’s what I want. Yeah, that’s what I want us to be able to do. And you’re right. Like, we’ve seen bipartisan support in the past for CHIP [the Children’s Health Insurance Program], for healthcare for kids in different ways, and I just saw that going in the wrong direction last year, which is why I wanted to release this now to try to move it back into the fold. I saw a real deprioritization of concerns raised by parents of kids with disabilities that were worried about how these Medicaid cuts would affect them. It’s not good enough for them to just get, like, a wink and a “trust us” type of message. We really need to make sure that we just never have parents with that type of anxiety about whether or not they’re going to lose care for their child. So, well, we’ll see going forward. But at least my early conversations with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, certainly around the overarching principles of care for kids, is promising. And I’m hopeful to be able to make some gains as we move forward in both the Senate, as well as in the House, as we start to push forward on that debate there too. 

Rovner: Well, we’re all about keeping the conversation going forward. Sen. Andy Kim, thank you so much. 

Kim: Yeah, thanks so much for having me. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Joanne, why don’t you go first this week? 

Kenen: OK. This is a story that’s up online in The New York Times, and I believe it’ll be in the Sunday Magazine this weekend. It’s by Dr. Helen Ouyang, whose name I don’t know how to pronounce, so I’m just going to apologize for not knowing how to pronounce it. The story is “.” For me, it’s not great because I was working on the same story, talking to some of the same people, and you know that’s not going to happen now. But something like she used the number 4 million, and it’s probably closer to 6 million, kids, between roughly the ages of like 10 and 18 or 19, are in fact the major caregiver for a sick parent or grandparent, and they are trying to juggle some kind of attendance at school and then doing medically complicated things, plus the psychological burden and not being able to be a normal teen. And these are largely poor kids. They are disproportionately Black and Hispanic kids. We do not have a system for helping them. The answer is not let them be caregivers because no one would be a caregiver. The person would have no care. The question is, really, how do we support them? Make it easier. Make sure they’re connected to whatever community resources or state resources or health resources that are available. Make sure they’re maxing out on that. But it’s a really disturbing and very moving story what these kids go through, because even those of us who are adults who’ve taken care of grandparents or parents, it’s really hard. And if you’re 15 or 10, it’s even harder. 

Rovner: Yeah, and taking care of siblings too in a lot of cases. Amanda. 

Seitz: My pick this week is “,” by Katherine Long of The Wall Street Journal. This is a story about a surrogate who agreed to carry what ended up being triplets for a father overseas in China. What I just found really remarkable about the reporting is that it takes this really horrible case â€” these children have essentially been left in the U.S. with the surrogate mother because the father from China hadn’t been able to come over due to visa issues. And, but it takes this really complicated story and looks at just the overall perils of the surrogacy industry that has exploded while being completely unregulated, and how all of these cases are largely playing out in courts and being complicated by the immigration policies of the Trump administration. So it was just a really fascinating read. 

Rovner: Other things that policymakers could be doing with their time. Alice. 

Ollstein: My pick is from NOTUS. It is called “.” So we talked about the vote to hold Fauci in contempt, but this is a look at what inadvertently, I guess, happened as a result of Rand Paul, who, let’s remember, is a doctor himself as well as a senator, releasing a huge tranche of private documents from Fauci and not redacting people’s personal medical information about their diagnoses. And this article talks about how that happened and how little recourse the people involved have about their information being exposed, and how this is a pattern with the administration of failing to redact people’s sensitive information when they do these big document dumps. 

Rovner: Oops. Yeah. Well, my extra credit this week is also about the Fauci affair. It’s from our podcast pal Sheryl Gay Stolberg at The New York Times, and it’s called “.” And wouldn’t you just know it, but it turns out that HHS Secretary RFK Jr. and one of his sons, and Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, have all published books accusing Tony Fauci of various crimes and misdeeds, and that after last week’s hearing, sales of those books jumped. Wrote Sheryl, “Ethics experts say that Mr. Kennedy, his son and Mr. Paul did not cross any legal or ethical lines, but several said the secretary and the senator did cross a threshold for hypocrisy by using their platforms to sell books about Dr. Fauci while accusing the scientist of profiting from his own public service.” I will let you all draw your own conclusions. 

All right, that is this week’s show. Thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. We also had production help this week from Taylor Cook. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts — as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. 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 , or on Bluesky . Where are you folks hanging these days. Alice? 

Ollstein: On Bluesky , and on X . 

Rovner: Joanne. 

Kenen: I’m mostly on  and on  . 

Rovner: Amanda. 

Seitz: And I am still tweeting from X on . 

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

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. And, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, July 30, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today, we are joined via video conference by Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Bloomberg News. 

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everyone. 

Rovner: Liz Essley Whyte of The Wall Street Journal. 

Liz Essley Whyte: Hello. 

Rovner: And Shefali Luthra of The 19^th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Rovner: No interview this week, but more than enough news, so we’ll get right to it. I want to start with a story that I feel like is getting a little bit buried because it broke last Friday.  on a federal court filing in which the Trump administration admitted that it canceled $7.5 billion in clean-energy grants solely because they were located in states represented by Democrats that voted for Kamala Harris in 2024. In other words, the actions were purely political. Now, this is before the administration finalizes proposed rules that would give political appointees still more power over how grant funding is distributed. I heard one pundit say on cable news that in any other administration, this sort of information would lead to an immediate impeachment inquiry. But these days, it’s just another day that ends in “y.” Is the lack of public outcry about this because everyone already assumes that everything this administration does is political? Or is this considered just too inside baseball for most voters?  

Whyte: Well, I was gonna say I think this has long been people’s suspicions about why certain grants are cut in the way that they are, or some of these Medicare/Medicaid investigations are the way that they are. And so I think maybe the lack of outcry was just people shrugging their shoulders and saying, I mean, yeah, we guessed that, you know. I don’t know. 

Cohrs Zhang: It was really chaotic too, and hard to keep track of all these different things for people whose job it is to do so. So I feel like the fact that this is protracted for so long, we’re like, which DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] cuts were those? And I think it is important, certainly, and I’m glad there’s been coverage of it, just for the record, and just kind of for history purposes and just understanding the limits of that kind of change to government at that speed. But yeah, I think it is just hard to break through in this news cycle, and it was very chaotic and confusing for everyone.  

Luthra: One thing I have been thinking about, though, is when you think about these states where grants were canceled, there are a lot of people who live there who did, in fact, vote for Donald Trump. And depending on the size of the state, you probably have members of Congress who are actually in Republican districts. And that, I think, is really interesting. And I just wonder if eventually there is some sort of conversation. Those are probably in some cases members who might be a little bit more on the defensive in other ways, just given the political environment we are in. And is this an issue that Democrats can talk about and highlight and sort of bring to voters and say, you know, your representative is not here defending your interests because of these broader sort of punitive measures being taken by the White House. I think that’s an interesting thing that we don’t know the answer to yet. 

Rovner: I know I keep saying this, but I can’t believe that Republicans on the [Senate] Appropriations Committee aren’t being louder about this. This is the one power that they have. It’s why you get on the Appropriations Committee, is you get to steer money to your state or your district. That is the great perquisite of being in Congress, and the administration is basically taking it away. And they’re just letting them. I mean, Susan Collins told Politico, quote, “I obviously think that’s wrong.” But she doesn’t seem willing to do anything about this. I mean, she’s the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee! 

Cohrs Zhang: I think we’re, like, testing the checks-and-balances system to its fullest extent. This administration. They can only pick so many fights, you know. 

Whyte: Yeah, Susan Collins, especially, this whole administration has had to choose about when to say something and when to push behind closed doors, push publicly. I mean, there’s been lots of stuff that she hasn’t liked. 

Rovner: Yeah, for sure. Well, this is not the only case where the government has admitted to canceling grants for political reasons. In a case brought by researchers from the University of California, the administration confirmed it canceled some grants because  like “diversity,” “gender,” and “vaccine hesitancy” to cut off funding. The plaintiffs in that case argue that it’s a First Amendment violation. Again, we’ve known for some time that this has been happening. Are the courts just too slow to be able to deal with it, Rachel? That’s kind of what you were intimating. This has been dragging out, sort of bit by bit by bit. 

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, I think it’s hard. And I â€” just like with these grants dragging out too, it has impact for the people who are supposed to be receiving this funding and how their cycles work and hiring and just all the â€¦ that grant process. But I think it’s hard to make that connection, back to the individual voter. And I think that’s just a tough hill to climb in terms of public communications. So I think, yeah, we’re seeing these similar themes play out. 

Luthra: And one thing that I think is really relevant that I keep coming back to is we did see a test run of this with the USAID [United States Agency for International Development] cuts at the beginning of the administration. Those happened very quickly. The courts took a very, very long time, and by the time there was any kind of real momentum in any direction, it was too late. People did not have money, firms had downsized, people had left their jobs, left the industry altogether. And, at the time, that seemed to me like a really striking test. If this is able to happen here, and it shows that things just continue, why not happen in other areas as well, where you have these grants being put out there that have maybe ideological tension with where the administration wants to be going? 

Rovner: So I wanted to talk about some specific impacts on health policy, notably AHRQ, the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research, which, like USAID, the administration has all but eliminated, despite the fact that it was appropriated nearly $350 million for this year in a bill signed by President Trump. AHRQ, which is down to a fraction of its original staff and hasn’t funded any grants in more than a year, is actually a completely bipartisan creation from the 1990s. It was established to study healthcare quality and access issues, many of which go neatly hand in hand with the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. Earlier this month, the administration stopped funding more than 100 grants, and an HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] spokeswoman told my Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleague Arthur Allen only that the agency plans to establish a new, quote, “framework,” which I thought was the job of Congress. Again, too small to attract much notice? 

Luthra: Probably. I mean, voters don’t know what AHRQ is. Like, we know about it because of our jobs, but this is not something people wake up and think about or talk to their neighbors about. It just feels very divorced from a lot of people’s realities. Even though, to your point, the consequences are far-reaching. They are long-term, and, also, the significance in terms of, as Rachel pointed out, separation of powers, checks and balances are also very striking.  

Rovner: I mean, AHRQ studies things like patient safety. I’m old enough to remember when the, you know, the big Institute of Medicine [now National Academy of Science] report came out that said how many people were injured by medical errors. It was a huge, huge issue. I mean, for years. And that’s basically what AHRQ does, and that’s what this administration says that they care about. They care about gold-standard science. They care about fraud. They care about making the health system safer. And yet, you know, AHRQ is just, well, we don’t know what it is, so we’re going to make it go away, basically. 

Whyte: Obviously, the HHS has not been as clear on this as you might hope and expect for the “most transparent administration in history.” But it is clear that, like, Kennedy is looking for pots of money to do the things that he wants to do. And it seems like this is one of the pots they’ve landed on as something that can be shifted around. 

Rovner: Yeah, so it does. Well, one cut that is likely to be noticed is the administration’s decision to end the temporary subsidy for Medicare Part D that prevented the addition of an out-of-pocket cap on how much enrollees have to spend each year on prescription drugs from spiking those monthly premiums. This will almost certainly raise premiums for many, if not most, of the 25 million seniors who have stand-alone Part D drug plans. And they will see those increases right before Election Day, because Medicare open enrollment starts Oct. 15. And, by the way, seniors vote in disproportionate numbers in midterm elections. If I was a political adviser for this administration, I don’t think I would have advised doing this. Am I missing something here? 

Cohrs Zhang: I think you are seeing there’s an interesting shift happening in terms of the power of the fiscal conservative wing of the administration. And I think we’ll continue to see that play out. I will say it’s unclear, like, how much premiums would have increased anyway without this subsidy program ending, given that the premium increases are capped by statute, in the Inflation Reduction Act through 2029. So, I mean, there is a chance that they might have gone up 6% anyway. We’re maxing out that increase. But the messaging certainly was not stellar for them. And I think we saw some cleanup efforts on that, for them trying to say that, you know, most seniors will see, you know, no increase or an increase of less than $10 a month. 

Rovner: Or they’ll have, I think Dr. [Mehmet] Oz said, they’ll still have an option for a cheaper plan. Of course, that cheaper plan might not cover all their drugs, but â€¦ 

Cohrs Zhang: Yes. So I think that’s just like a â€¦ this is one, I think, data point in this larger theme I’m thinking about. And how do we see â€” as we move past the midterm elections and affordability may not be top of mind if there’s no electoral accountability for it â€” how does that change what we’re seeing out of these agencies? 

Rovner: I’m just old enough to remember when, you know, you don’t raise costs for Medicare beneficiaries right before a midterm election, which is what this will do. Well, it isn’t all cuts. The administration this week finally released the $600 million that Congress had appropriated for the global Vaccine Initiative, Gavi. That was money for last year and this year. The funding had been blocked by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. even though it goes through the State Department, not the Department of Health and Human Services. Kennedy had been concerned that Gavi was paying for vaccines containing the preservative thimerosal, which has been accused, and cleared, of causing autism. Do we know what finally sprung this money loose? 

Cohrs Zhang: I think there was a deadline of Sept. 30, and the funding would have expired. And we did see kind of an exchange with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Susan Collins, where he said, “You know, I’m going to take ownership of this, and we’re going to get it done.” And so I think there was a push by administration officials to get this funding pried loose. And I think there are questions about whether Gavi was kind of heading this way already with some of these vaccines. I think they were starting the transition, but I think there â€¦ we’ll see how the implementation works on it. But I think there might be an argument that maybe this transition might have happened maybe faster â€¦ or to a broader degree. 

Rovner: The transition away from using thimerosal. 

Cohrs Zhang: Yes, the states â€¦ there’s one hexavalent vaccine where countries could already apply to transition to a different formulation without thimerosal starting in 2023. So, but maybe an option would be broader. Just there’s kind of a lot up in the air as to actually how this gets operationalized in the timeline. 

Rovner: Yeah, I was thinking, though, this might have been one of the cases where Congress complaining, both publicly and privately, did actually have some impact. But also, I know a lot of it was Marco Rubio stepping in and saying, “Hey, this is a State Department thing.” And finally, you know, I say a year and eight months later, the money gets distributed. All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back.  

Well, speaking of things that may or may not be good politics, Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky called former NIH [National Institutes of Health] and White House science official Tony Fauci before his Homeland Security Committee Wednesday to rake him over the coals again over his handling of the covid pandemic. Fauci, who received a preemptive pardon from President Joe Biden as Biden was walking out of the Oval Office door in 2025, did not take the bait. He pleaded the Fifth, lest anything he said be used for a new prosecution for lying to Congress. Meanwhile, Paul says he’ll try to find Fauci in contempt of Congress, which, by the way, would take 60 votes, which feels a little unlikely. Separately, several red-state attorneys general say they now want to investigate Fauci since his pardon doesn’t cover state prosecutions. First, prosecute him for what? And is relitigating covid origins and lockdowns really good politics for Republicans? I’m sure it riles up the base, but it’s hard to see them running on this as their health agenda. 

Whyte: So Rand Paul actually said on TV last night that he just thinks his committee needs to do the contempt of Congress vote, and then they can refer it to the DOJ [Department of Justice]. So they may not need 60 votes. So that will be interesting. Meanwhile, [Sen.] Ron Johnson [R-Wis.] has also threatened to subpoena Fauci. And the Florida attorney general is opening an investigation. And Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville says if he becomes governor, he’s going to try to figure out a way to prosecute Fauci in Alabama. So there’s definitely a lot of focus on Dr. Fauci. 

Rovner: I repeat, though, prosecute him for what? 

Whyte: Well, you know, before the hearing, Rand Paul was saying, Yeah, his preemptive pardon covers stuff in the past, but if he lies again at this hearing, then we will, you know, go after him or whatever. 

Rovner: Right, and that’s why he didn’t, that’s why he pleaded the Fifth.  

Whyte: Right, which is why it was viewed as an â€¦ entrapment situation that he should probably steer clear of, and why he would not even answer, like, what is the color of the carpet. 

Rovner: And what color his tie was, or was it Sen. [Josh] Hawley’s tie? 

Whyte: Yeah, and what day of the week it was, yeah. Whether it’s good politics for Republicans, I think we’ll have to see. There’s an Ohio candidate that they’ve tried to get for being, you know, covid czar or whatever, and that really hasn’t gone anywhere in Ohio. She’s polling OK. So I think that’s a good question on whether voters still care about this or not. I think obviously a lot of them do, but, like, the suburban women who are, you know, the famous swing voters, what do they think about Dr. Fauci? Will be interesting to see. 

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, I guess just for watching the questioning, it seemed that they’re trying to, you know, that we know that Democrats have more enthusiasm going into this midterm than Republicans. And it looked like the Republicans were trying to, you know, reactivate the angry covid base, if you will, to get them to come out and vote. It’s just hard to know how many people are angry enough to come out, you know, six years later.  

All right. Well, speaking of buzzy stories, Liz, you  about how Trump might be pushing RFK Jr. on childhood vaccine policy rather than what we all assumed was the other way around. So tell us about it. 

Whyte: Yeah, this is a bit of a counterintuitive news development for two reasons. One, because everybody thinks RFK Jr. is the big vaccine skeptic in the administration. And two, because the White House had, you know, is widely reported that they were telling HHS to “ix-nay on the accines-vay” ahead of the midterms â€” like, just dial it down a little bit because of polling they had from the winter that showed while food and ag [agricultural] stuff was really popular, the other MAHA stuff, vaccine skepticism, was not, and they kind of wanted to tone it down. But the president does what he wants. He does not always listen to the polling. And he has been telling Kennedy since at least May, why aren’t you doing more to probe the connection, in his mind, between vaccines and autism? And this took Kennedy aback, actually, at a golf course lunch in May. He was surprised because he was still under the impression they were supposed to be dialing back. And President Trump told him, “You have the yips,” which I just think is such a funny word. 

Rovner: It’s a golf term. 

Whyte: Yes, it’s a golf term. And that has continued to be, actually, a point of tension between the two men, with the president venting his frustration to Kennedy at a mid-June Oval Office meeting. And part of the reason we’re seeing some of this increased action, even if it’s not, you know, really talked about much, but appeals to the federal appeals court to speed up the decision for the key vaccine advisory panel of the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], and then also there was that EO [executive order] in May that Trump put out on the childhood vaccine schedule, and just kind of general scrambling behind the scenes to figure out, like, what they can deliver for the president, who is, I’m told, a results guy and wants to see results and thinks, you know, it’s been a year and a half, and why aren’t there results? So, we’ll see where that leads. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, if this puts Kennedy in hot water with the president,  what the newest, who the newest likely candidate is should RFK Jr. leave his post, either voluntarily or not so voluntarily. Tell us about your story. 

Cohrs Zhang: So I have been working on this story for a very long time. But I think we’ve seen kind of this surprise in Washington that Dr. Oz, who’s leading Medicare and Medicaid, has actually like navigated the Trump administration with great skill, and I think we were finally able to capture the scope of that, him translating that skill into personal relationships with the president, with the secretary, and getting himself a seat at the table on far more policy issues than a CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] administrator would normally get. And I think we saw, those of us who remember the first Trump administration, how ugly things got between HHS and CMS â€” was like very adversarial, like a really bad time in there, very toxic. But I think we’ve seen him take a more, like, cooperative approach. He wields his influence, is more explaining things. He is a medical doctor, his training, unlike the secretary. And I think there is just, like, a general trust and, like, personal friendship between the two of them that has translated into this interesting dynamic, where Dr. Oz kind of serves as a go-between on some of these issues between the White House and the secretary and gets everybody kind of to the place where they need to go. And he’s just a good communicator and has built a lot of trust and parlayed that into getting himself a seat at the table. 

Rovner: Yeah, and Liz â€¦ your story about Kennedy and Trump also suggested that Oz’s favor is rising, shall we say? 

Whyte: Yeah, the White House staff love Oz because they know they can send him to the Hill. They can put him on TV. Like, he’s going to do a great job. Rachel had this too. You know, the president calling and texting Oz and saying, you know, what about this issue? and it has nothing to do with CMS. He’s, you know, being called upon to do other stuff that is not in his portfolio. So yeah, every lobbyist is just, like, watching their clock and seeing when Oz takes over. I don’t know that it’s that straightforward. I think the president and secretary have a very warm friendship, and it took a lot for Kristi Noem to get let go, and I don’t think we’re anywhere near that. So we’ll have to see if the mood changes after the midterms. But it doesn’t seem to me that anything would be imminent. 

Rovner: I would add that I know Oz is the one person practically in the entire administration, not just at HHS, who actually does well when he goes to the Hill. Who, you know, is respectful and sort of understands how administration officials are supposed to conduct themselves when they are in front of the people who theoretically are responsible for them having their jobs.  

Whyte: Yeah, you’ll find the Democrat staffers are like, Oh, we actually like Oz, which is funny, I think.  

Rovner: He’s a good politician! What can I say? Rachel, do you want to add something? 

Cohrs Zhang: I will say, though, he did play a role in selling all these Medicaid cuts that are going to be coming down the pike. 

Rovner: He did. 

Cohrs Zhang: And so I think he is going to be the face of this when they actually go to implement it.  

Rovner: He will. 

Cohrs Zhang: So yeah, we’ll see how that goes.  

Rovner: We’ll see how that goes.  

Cohrs Zhang: What time frame they’ll be doing that in. But yeah, certainly. Yeah, it’s interesting. 

Whyte: They’ve kind of given up selling that, too. You know, it’s not something they’re being like, Oh, look at all the great stuff we did with Medicaid in the One Big Beautiful Bill. It’s very much pivoted to fraud.  

Rovner: Yeah, but when it starts, when it takes effect next year, I think there’s going to be, there will be lots of questions to answer. Shefali, do you want to add something before we move on? 

Luthra: The only thing that really just I keep thinking about is the long history of this relationship between Dr. Oz and the president, and, in particular, when during the 2016 campaign he was the one to talk about the president’s testosterone levels on TV and how they were excellent. And I just think it’s really special that we’ve come full circle in this way. 

Rovner: Yes, yes, it is, and we have. All right, moving on. One thing that Secretary RFK Jr. said this week that’s pretty clearly not true is that the department has the cyclospora parasite outbreak, quote, “under control.” A former deputy commissioner of food at the FDA under both the first Trump administration and President Biden told Politico this week that, quote, “it is starting to approach a catastrophic level in terms of how mismanaged it’s been on multiple fronts.” Rachel, you’re keeping an eye on this. What is the latest? What do we know about cyclospora and where it’s coming from? And are the recalls that are in existence enough to stop it? 

Cohrs Zhang: I don’t think they’re stopping it, by any means, especially with an incubation period of two weeks. I think we are continuing to see more cases reported, and I think, like you mentioned, there’s, I think, fingers pointing in all directions. Our team and others have done reporting on just how Taylor Farms has handled themselves behind the scenes. The public spat between Taylor Farms and the FDA was not something you usually see in an outbreak of this kind. It’s just worth probably pointing out that the FDA did DOGE much of its communications staff that has experience with this sort of outbreak. We have, you know, officials shifting around, and there’s some key vacancies at the FDA as well in a lot of these leadership positions. So I think there’s been complaints, certainly, at, like, the report you mentioned about the federal response, but also about the company and their speed and their clarity and communication, and whether that’s truly serving the public interest or not. And I think there are, if I’m not mistaken, some ongoing investigations into other potential causes. But we are seeing a lot of these cases tied back to lettuce from a specific part of Mexico. So I think they have gotten the word out now, but just the confusion and the back-and-forth. And I think former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb got on CNBC and said he would have expected more communication from the FDA on this issue. But it’s kind of a tough one when it’s a voluntary recall, and there’s a company, and they’ve used some restrictions, you know, and what they’re supposed to be talking about publicly. But I think there has just been so much consumer confusion, and that’s not in anyone’s interest. 

Rovner: And as we said, this is not a simple thing to track. It’s not like E. coli; you can’t really find it. Liz, you and your colleagues reported, though, on, you know, Taylor Farms going straight to the White House to try and sort of go over the heads of the FDA on this. 

Whyte: Yeah, Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal had stories with different pieces of this, and it was, you know, in our story, you could see that they were trying to distance themselves from the outbreak before they got named publicly, which is kind of this new wild West of lobbying that we’re in, where it makes a lot of sense for companies to go straight to the White House and skip over dealing with career officials. And what was interesting was that the way all that played out with the communications is Taylor was able to say, FDA apologized to us, made this like really confusing statement. And the FDA, maybe because it didn’t have the comms folks with experience, like Rachel was talking about, at the FDA with, you know, various layers of people who have done this before, you know, it took them till the next day to say: By the way, our epidemiology on this is really good. It’s definitely still Taylor Farms. We just, like, had that one false positive. It was crazy to me how, like, twisted and turned that got. 

Rovner: It was not well handled from a public communications standpoint, shall we say? All right. Well, one thing that we know that RFK Jr. thinks highly of are peptides; those are the amino acids that wellness influencers say can build muscle, heal injuries, and burn fat, among other things. Last week, an FDA advisory committee voted, over the objections of FDA’s own scientists â€” who say evidence on the benefits of peptides is either skimpy or nonexistent — to nonetheless make it easier for compounding pharmacies to make and sell products containing several different specific peptides. Now, this is not just a scientific disagreement. Several members of this advisory panel are actual sellers of this product, right? 

Whyte: Yeah, the panel was a bunch of members who either worked for companies that sell peptides or had a clinic that offers them. And the HHS said these people went through a conflict process. It doesn’t seem like it could have been as rigorous as the previous conflict processes that were in place. I haven’t seen a ton of reporting on that. But, you know, predictably they greenlighted most of the peptides that they looked at over and against the strong recommendations from FDA staff scientists who said we don’t have evidence that these are safe. Like, this is kind of unprecedented. The argument in favor was, well, you know, we do something similar with supplements. You know, Secretary Kennedy has said people should be free to try these out, and you know he wants to end the war on peptides. And meanwhile, scientists with a traditional background in looking at risk and benefits are saying the risks are there, the benefits are not proven, and this almost creates a different paradigm for how we’re looking at medical interventions now. 

Rovner: Yeah, and I think we’ve seen this across the FDA and across HHS. I mean, this is basically what they’re, you know, calling gold-standard science. That there’s a lot of people â€¦ go ahead, Rachel. 

Cohrs Zhang: I was just gonna say, and I’m â€¦ I think, looking forward, this creates a split decision, right, between the FDA scientists and the ag comm, and that’s gonna put the FDA in a tough position as to who what they’re going to choose because former commissioner Marty Makary loved to say he was siding with the career scientists, and now we have this forum to hear what they actually think, like, presented to the public. So I think that’s going to be a tough decision ahead, and that’ll tell us how things are working inside. 

Rovner: And of course, we only have an acting commissioner of FDA right now, so â€¦  

Cohrs Zhang: Yes, with instructions to not make news. 

Rovner: Finally, this week, news on reproductive health â€” because there is always news on reproductive health. Shefali, we had a decision in one of the court cases challenging how the FDA regulates the abortion pill mifepristone, but it’s not the case that we’ve all been watching, right? 

Luthra: No, this was the Virginia case. And what it reminds us is that there’s actually a million different mifepristone cases because you have people looking for more restrictions on mifepristone, and you also have people looking for fewer restrictions on mifepristone. And a lot of the folks who provide the drug, the doctors and manufacturers, have argued that, in fact, there are more restrictions than are actually appropriate. That this is actually much safer, and it does not need to be so hard to get because, for all of the concerns from conservatives and abortion opponents, it actually is very difficult to prescribe and make mifepristone available without going through a lot of hoops of certification. And so we see, right, in some cases, like here, an effort to try and loosen those restrictions a bit and say this could be more available, especially, I mean, people when they have miscarriages, it is actually very hard to get mifepristone, even though it actually would be very beneficial for management. But I think what this does, practically, is again not much changes for now because we have so much going through so many courts in different ways. Realistically, I mean, access to the drug stays as what it is: available in some places, not available in others. And the big case that we’re all waiting for, the Louisiana one, that could possibly bring restrictions in, that very briefly did bring restrictions in mifepristone earlier this year â€” we’ll probably see more on that closer to the election. And that could be very interesting because, as we’ve talked about so many times, this is not really an issue the White House or a lot of Republicans, frankly, would like to be in the news, because they know that restrictions on abortion just remain so unpopular and continue to be for a long time. 

Rovner: And this is almost certainly heading for the Supreme Court, right? We now have a court, you know, a lower court saying that the Biden administration’s restrictions were too tight, and one assumes that coming out of Louisiana, we will have a decision that says that they’re not tight enough. 

Luthra: I would be stunned if the Supreme Court did not hear a mifepristone case in the coming few years. It just seems like we’ve been building in this direction for a very long time. You’re totally right. The split circuit looming makes that more likely. And I mean, realistically, if I supported abortion rights, if I wanted to make this pill more available, as the folks arguing against the Biden restrictions are, I don’t know that I would be thrilled about this being something before the Supreme Court because this is known to be a more conservative court. A lot of members who think abortion should be far less available than it is â€” this is the same court that overturned Roe v. Wade. And so I think there’s a real possibility that as we see more and more abortion decisions make their way to the Supreme Court, the restrictions we have become even more so, and where we are now becomes a baseline for making this even more difficult for people to obtain. 

Rovner: We will have to see. Meanwhile, our podcast pal Alice [Miranda] Ollstein has a co-bylined story at Politico this week about how anti-abortion groups are pulling out all the stops to try to show that the increased use of . Now they have a study, commissioned by the group Students for Life, claiming that mifepristone is showing up in, quote, “significant levels” in waterways in Austin, Texas; Blacksburg, Virginia; and Carbondale, Illinois â€” all major college towns, not coincidentally. And while the science behind this remains questionable, the politics don’t, right? 

Luthra: Right. And this is a strategy they’ve been working on for quite some time, putting bills in state legislatures, talking to anyone who will listen about this, and saying, If we care about the environment, the left cares about the environment,why don’t we care about what they say is this mifepristone pollution in the water that they say is caused by medication abortions? And they want to use this argument as a different prong on the way to stop people from having mifepristone made available, of making medication abortions harder to obtain. We haven’t really seen this really yield fruit yet. However, this is part of, again, a longer-term strategy to lay groundwork. And studies like this, they create an intellectual groundwork as well. We saw that with the telehealth studies, the mifepristone safety and efficacy studies â€” and I perhaps should do “studies” in air quotes because a lot of mainstream researchers call these not very good science. But if you create a large-enough body to point to, then ultimately you can have people in positions of power say, “Well, we’ve looked at the evidence from all sides, and we see these real concerns, and we’re going to use them to inform policy.” I don’t know that that will happen anytime soon, but it’s certainly a goal that they’re building toward. 

Rovner: They’re talking points, basically. 

Luthra: Absolutely. 

Rovner: All right. Well, that is this week’s news. 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 post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Rachel, why don’t you go first this week? 

Cohrs Zhang: Mine is from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. The headline is “Trump Administration Demands Hospitals Share Emergency Room Records,” by Amanda Seitz, Maia Rosenfeld, and Darius Tahir. I think this is one installment, and that this broader arc of coverage that they have really owned â€” it’s so diffuse. There’s like states, and there’s providers, and there’s government officials involved, but I think it really illuminates kind of like where is the Trump administration looking for data? I think this is something that started during the DOGE era, where you had DOGE employees trying to get data from different government agencies. But you’re seeing it as, I think, we’ve talked about previously, like, there’s a desire for studies and, you know, things to move faster. Like, where are we looking for data? I think this whole arc of coverage has been really valuable in illuminating: Where are they looking. Is this precedented? Kind of how could these datasets be used? What are the patient potential issues? Are there privacy issues? Can this data be protected? That I think are going to be really important as we kind of look into the rest of this administration, because we’re only a year and a half in. Like, we got a ways to go. 

Rovner: And, oh I mean we say over many, many, many years it’s always been Republicans who have been, you know, very much into the federal government shouldn’t have its hands in people’s personal data, and yet here we have an administration that’s trying to get personal data from every single possible place. 

Cohrs Zhang: Right, it’s fascinating. And this just makes it so concrete. And I think it’s great accountability work, and they’ve clearly developed great sourcing on this. 

Rovner: Yeah. Liz. 

Whyte: Mine is a  by two doctors who are concerned about the burgeoning pediatric public health emergency, as they call it, about e-bikes and e-scooters. And I’ve been wondering about this for a long time because I see kids doing two, three kids on these scooters going so fast with no helmets. It’s always boggling my mind, but it’s apparently gotten really bad. They looked at data from 2020 to 2021 and saw an increase in injuries, up 71% in just one year â€” kid injuries with e-scooters and e-bikes. So that was 8,545 of those injuries in 2021. And the doctors discuss how, you know, these injury patterns that these kids get â€” I mean, they’re going up to like 28 mph â€” look very similar to when a child gets hit by a car. And that’s, it’s just real sad. So TBD on whether anybody does any kind of age-appropriate access standards or something like that that can help dial back these injuries. And then I guess I’m cheating Julie, but a shoutout to  recently, about how peptide med spa clinics have less regulation at the state level than your local restaurant or hair salon. She contacted all 50 states, and I thought it was just a really good supplement to the peptide news that we saw recently. 

Rovner: It was, and â€¦ forgive me for not mentioning it, and we will link to that one too. But I’m so glad you did the e-bike thing because if you hadn’t done that, I was going to, because the number of kids just in my neighborhood, little kids on motorized vehicles, it’s like: Shouldn’t they have to have driver’s licenses to do this? Anyway. Shefali. 

Luthra: My piece is by Aaron Carroll. It is an op-ed in The Washington Post. The headline is: “.” And what he talks about, I think, is just so smart. It’s about how it actually would be great if we had better and more research on SSRIs. However, the point he makes is that the government is actually not really approaching this from that kind of vantage. And instead the idea is to try and just cut back access to SSRIs, rather than learn more about them, learn how to make them work better, if they are as effective as they want them to be. And the point that he gets at the end as well is that while it is really good and worthwhile to investigate and study how well SSRIs work, one thing that we are actually getting into, which is really problematic, is stigmatizing use of them. And he talks about why that’s actually not good, and that is not actually helpful when it comes to thinking about how to make treatment for depression better and better and better. And I love this framing because we should try and make medications better for people. We should always be looking at treatments we have and saying, yes, they work. But what if we made them work better and better? What if we had fewer side effects? What if we made them more effective? That would be awesome. And I really love that he is putting those questions out there in a way that is smart and productive and forward-looking. 

Rovner: And not partisan. This has never been partisan. This is just so â€¦  it’s all so unprecedented. All right. My extra credit this week is from The Arkansas Times. It’s called “,” by Byron Tate. And it’s about exactly what the headline says. Since Congress gave states the option to extend Medicaid coverage to postpartum women for a full year after they give birth, 49 states have exercised that option â€” all but Arkansas, where that coverage still ends after 60 days. And Arkansas has one of the nation’s highest maternal mortality rates. So who’s against it? Apparently, the governor, Republican Sarah Huckabee Sanders, herself a mom. She says these women should be transitioning to other coverage, except apparently most of them are not. According to one study, 94% of those losing postpartum Medicaid are becoming uninsured instead. 

OK, that is this week’s show. Thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts — as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. 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 , and on Bluesky . Where are you folks hanging on socials these days? Rachel? 

Cohrs Zhang: I’m on X  and also on . 

Rovner: Shefali. 

Luthra: On Bluesky . 

Rovner: Liz. 

Whyte: I am on X  â€” with a “Y,” W-H-Y-T-E â€” and . You can Google me. 

Rovner: I’m sure people can find you. All right, we’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.