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

Julie Rovner: Hello from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and WAMU public radio in Washington, D.C., and welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Jan. 15, 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 Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi, everyone. 

Rovner: Alice [Miranda] Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: 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 my interview with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ Elisabeth Rosenthal, who reported and wrote the latest “Bill of the Month,” about an ER trip, a scorpion pepper, and a ghost bill. But first, this week’s news. Let’s start this week on Capitol Hill, where both houses of Congress are here and legislating. This week alone, the Senate rejected a Democratic effort to accept the House-passed bill that would renew for three years the Affordable Care Act’s expanded subsidies â€” the ones that expired Jan. 1.  

The Senate also turned back an effort to cancel the Trump administration’s regulation covering the ACA, which, although it has gotten far less attention than the subsidies, would also result in a lot of people losing or dropping health insurance coverage.  

Meanwhile, in the House, Republicans are struggling just to keep the lights on. Between resignations, illnesses, and deaths, House Republicans are very nearly â€” in the words of longtime Congress watcher  â€” a [majority] in name only, which I guess is pronounced “MINO.” Their majority is now so thin that one or two votes can hand Democrats a win, as we saw earlier this week in a surprise defeat on an otherwise fairly routine labor bill. Which brings us to the prospects for renewing those Affordable Care Act subsidies. When the dust cleared from last week’s House vote, 17 Republicans joined all the House’s Democrats to pass the bill and send it to the Senate. But it seems that the bipartisan efforts in the Senate to get a deal are losing steam. What’s the latest you guys are hearing? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so it wasn’t a good sign when the person who has sort of come out as a leader of these bipartisan negotiations, Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno, at first came out very strong and said, We’re in the end zone. We’re very close to a deal. We’re going to have bill text. And that was several days ago, and now they’re saying that maybe they’ll have something by the end of the month. But the initial enthusiasm very quickly fizzled as they really got into the negotiations, and, from what my colleagues have reported, there’s still disagreements on several fronts, you know, including this idea of having a minimum charge for all plans, no zero-premium plans anymore, which the right says is to crack down on fraud, and the left says would really deter low-income people from getting coverage. And there, of course, is, as always, a fight about abortion, as we spoke about on this podcast before. There is not agreement on how Obamacare currently treats abortion, and thus there can be no agreement on how it should treat abortion. 

And so the two sides have not come to any kind of compromise. And I don’t know what compromise would be possible, because all of the anti-abortion activist groups and their allies in Congress, of which there are many, say that the only thing they’ll accept is a blanket national ban on any plan that covers abortion receiving a subsidy, and that’s a nonstarter for most, if not all, Democrats. So I don’t know where we go from here. 

Rovner: Well, we will talk more about both abortion and the ACA in a minute, but first, lawmakers have just over two weeks to finish the remaining spending bills, or else risk yet another government shutdown. They seem to [be] making some headway on many of those spending bills, but not so much on the bill that funds most of the Department of Health and Human Services. Any chance they can come up with a bill that can get 60 votes in the Senate and a majority in the much more conservative House? That is a pretty narrow needle to thread. I don’t think abortion is going to be a huge issue in Labor, HHS, because that’s where the Hyde Amendment lives, and we usually see the Hyde Amendment renewed. But, you know, I see a lot of Democrats and, frankly, Republicans in the Senate wanting to put money back for a lot of the things that HHS has cut, and the House [is] probably not so excited about putting all of that money back. I’m just wondering if there really is a deal to be had, or if we’re going to see for the, you know, however many year[s] in a row, another continuing resolution, at least for the Department of Health and Human Services. 

Ollstein: Well, you’re hearing a lot more optimism from lawmakers about the spending bill than you are about a[n] Obamacare subsidy deal or any of the other things that they’re fighting about. And I would say, on the spending, I think the much bigger fights are going to be outside the health care space. I think they’re going to be about immigration, with everything we’re seeing about foreign policy, whether and how to put restraints on the Trump administration, on both of those fronts. On health, yes, I think you’ve seen efforts to restore funding for programs that was slashed by the Trump administration, and you are seeing some Republican support for that. I mean, it impacts their districts and their voters too. So that makes sense. 

Kenen: We’ve also seen the Congress vote for spending that the administration hasn’t been spent. So Congress has just voted on a series of things about science funding and other health-related issues, including global health. But it remains to be seen whether this administration takes appropriations as law or suggestion. 

Rovner: So while the effort to revive the additional ACA subsidies appears to be losing steam, there does seem to be some new hope for a bipartisan health package that almost became law at the end of 2024, so 13 months ago. Back then, Elon Musk got it stripped from the year-end spending bill because the bill, or so Musk said, had gotten too big. That health package includes things like reforms for pharmacy benefits managers and hospital outpatient payments, and continued funding for community health centers. Could that finally become law? That thing that they said, Oh, we’ll pass it first thing next year, meaning 2025. 

Edney: I think it’s certainly looking more likely than the subsidies that we’ve been talking about. But I do think we’ve been here before several times, not just at the end of last year â€” but, like with these PBM reforms, I feel like they have certainly gotten to a point where it’s like, This is happening. It’s gonna happen. And, I mean, it’s been years, though, that we’ve been talking about pharmacy benefit manager reforms in the space of drug pricing. So basically, you know, from when [President Donald] Trump won. And so, you know, I say this with, like, a huge amount of caution: Maybe. 

Rovner: Yeah, we will, but we’ll believe it when â€¦ we get to the signing ceremony. 

Ollstein: Exactly. 

Rovner: Well, back to the Affordable Care Act, for which enrollment in most states end today. We’re getting an early idea of how many people actually are dropping coverage because of the expiration of those subsidies. Sign-ups on the federal marketplace are down about 1.5 million from the end of last year’s enrollment period, and that’s before most people have to pay their first bill. States that run their own marketplaces are also reporting that people are dropping coverage, or else trying to shift to cheaper plans. I’m wondering if these early numbers â€” which are actually stronger than many predicted, with fewer people actually dropping coverage â€” reflect people who signed up hoping that Congress might actually renew the subsidies this month. Since we kept saying that was possible. 

Ollstein: I would bet that most people are not following the minutiae of what’s happening on Capitol Hill and have no idea the mess we’re in, and why, and who’s responsible. I would love to be wrong about that. I would love for everyone to be super informed. Hopefully they listen to this podcast. But you know, I think that a lot of people just sign up year after year and aren’t sure of what’s going on until they’re hit with the giant bill.  

Rovner: Yeah. 

Ollstein: One thing I will point out about the emerging numbers is it does show, at least early indications, that the steps a lot of states are taking to make up for the shortfalls and put their own funding into helping people and subsidizing plans, that’s really working. You’re seeing enrollment up in some of those states, and so I wonder if that’ll encourage any others to get on board as well. 

Kenen: But â€¦ I think what Julie said is it’s â€¦ the follow-up is less than expected. But for the reasons Julie just said is that you haven’t gotten your bill yet. So either you haven’t been paying attention, or you’re an optimist and think there’ll be a solution. So, and people might even pay their first bill thinking that there’ll be a solution next month, or that we’re close. I mean, I would think there’d be drop-off soon, but there might be a steeper cliff a month or two from now, when people realize this is it for the year, and not just a tough, expensive month or two. So just because they’re not as bad as some people forecast doesn’t say that this is going to be a robust coverage year. 

Edney: And I think, I mean, they are the whole picture when you’re talking about who’s signing up, but a lot of these people that I’ve read about or heard about are on the radio programs and different things are signing up, are drastically changing their lives to be able to afford what they think might be their insurance. So how does that play out in other aspects? I think will be .. of the economy of jobs, like, where does that lead us? I think will be something to watch out for too. 

Rovner: And by the way, in case you’re wondering why health insurance is so expensive, we got the , and total health expenditures grew by 7.2% from the previous year to $5.3 trillion, or 18% of the nation’s GDP [gross domestic product], up from 17.7% the year before. Remember, these are the numbers for 2024, not 2025, but it makes it pretty hard for Republicans to blame the Affordable Care Act itself for rising insurance premiums. Insurance is more expensive because we’re spending more on health care. It’s not really that complicated, right? 

Kenen: This 17%-18% of GDP has been pretty consistent, which doesn’t mean it’s good; it just means it’s been around that level for many, many, many years. Despite all the talk about how it’s unsustainable, it’s been sustained, with pain, but sustained. $5.7 trillion, even if you’ve been doing this a long time â€¦ 

Rovner: It’s $5.3 trillion. 

Kenen: $5.3 trillion. It’s a mind-boggling number. It’s a lot of dollars! So the ACA made insurance more â€” the out-of-pocket cost of insurance for millions of Americans, 20-ish million â€” but the underlying burden we’ve not solved the — to use the word of the moment, the “affordability” crisis in health care is still with us and arguably getting worse. But like, I think we’re sort of numb. These numbers are just so insane, and yet you say it’s unsustainable, but â€¦ I think it was Uwe’s line, right? 

Rovner: It was, it was a famous Uwe Reinhardt line. 

Kenen: No, it’s sustainable, if we’re sustaining it at a high â€” in economically â€” zany price.  

Rovner: Right. 

Kenen: And, like, the other thing is, like, where is the money? Right? Everybody in health care says they don’t have any money, so I can’t figure out who has the $5 trillion. 

Rovner: Yeah, well, it’s not â€¦ it does not seem to be the insurance companies as much as it is, you know, if you look at these numbers â€” and I’ll post a link to them â€” you know, it’s hospitals and drug companies and doctors and all of those who are part of the health care industrial complex, as I like to call it. 

Kenen: All of them say they don’t have enough.  

Rovner: Right. All right. So we know that the Affordable Care Act subsidies are hung up over abortion, as Alice pointed out, and we know that the big abortion demonstration, the March for Life, is coming up next week, so I guess it shouldn’t be surprising that Senate health committee chairman and ardent anti-abortion senator Bill Cassidy would hold a hearing not on changes to the vaccine schedule, which he has loudly and publicly complained about, but instead about the reputed dangers of the abortion pill, mifepristone. Alice, like me, you watched yesterday’s hearing. What was your takeaway? 

Ollstein: So, you know, in a sense, this was a show hearing. There wasn’t a bill under consideration. They didn’t have anyone from the administration to grill. And so this is just sort of your typical each side tries to make their point hearing. And the bigger picture here is that conservatives, including senators and the activist groups who are sort of goading them on from the outside â€” they’re really frustrated right now about the Trump administration and the lack of action they’ve seen in this first year of this administration on their top priority, which is restricting the abortion pill. Their bigger goal is outlawing all abortion, but since abortion pills comprise the majority of abortions these days, that’s what they’re targeting. And so they’re frustrated that, you know, both [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] and [Marty] Makary have promised some sort of review or action on the abortion pill, and they say, We want to see it. Why haven’t you done it yet? And so I think that pressure is only going to mount, and this hearing was part of that. 

Rovner: I was fascinated by the Louisiana attorney general saying, basically, the quiet part out loud, which is that we banned abortion, but because of these abortion pills, abortions are still going up in our state. That was the first time I think I’d heard an official say that. I mean that, if you wonder why they’re going after the abortion pill, that’s why â€” because they struck down Roe [v. Wade] and assumed that the number of abortions would go down, and it really has not, has it? 

Ollstein: That’s right. And so not only are people increasingly using pills to terminate pregnancies, but they’re increasingly getting them via telemedicine. And you know, that’s absolutely true in states with bans, but it’s also true in states where abortion is legal. You know, a lot of people just really prefer the telemedicine option, whether because it’s cheaper, or they live really far away from a doctor who is willing to prescribe this, or, you know, any other reasons. So the right â€” you know, again, including senators like Cassidy, but also these activist groups â€” they’re saying, at a bare minimum, we want the Trump administration to ban telemedicine for the pills and reinstate the in-person dispensing requirement. That would really roll back access across the country. But what they really want is for the pills to be taken off the market altogether. And they’re pretty open about saying that.  

Rovner: Well, rather convenient timing from the , which published a peer-reviewed study of 5,000 pages of documents from the FDA that found that over the last dozen years, when it comes to the abortion pill and its availability, the agency followed the evidence-based recommendations of its scientists every single time, except once, and that once was during the first Trump administration. Alice, is there anything that will convince people that the scientific evidence shows that mifepristone is both safe and effective and actually has a very low rate of serious complications? There were, how many, like 100, more than 100 peer-reviewed studies that basically show this, plus the experience of many millions of women in the United States and around the world. 

Ollstein: Well, just like I’m skeptical that there’s any compromise that can be found on the Obamacare subsidies, there’s just no compromise here. You know, you have the groups that are making these arguments about the pills’ safety say very openly that, you know, the reason they oppose the pills is because they cause abortions. They say it can’t be health care if it’s designed to end a life, and that kind of rhetoric. And so the focus on the rate of complication â€¦ I mean, I’m not saying they’re not genuinely concerned. They may be, but, you know, this is one of many tactics they’re using to try to curb access to the pills. So it’s just one argument in their arsenal. It’s not their, like, primary driving, overriding goal is, is the safety which, like you said, has been well established with many, many peer-reviewed studies over the last several years. 

¸é´Ç±¹²Ô±ð°ù:ÌýSo, in between these big, high-profile anti-abortion actions like Senate hearings, those supporting abortion rights are actually still prevailing in court, at least in the lower courts. This week, [a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association against the Trump administration after the administration also quietly gave Planned Parenthood and other family planning groups] back the Title X family planning money that was appropriated to it by Congress. That was what Joanne was referring to, that Congress has been appropriating money that the administration hasn’t been spending. But this wasn’t really the big pot of federal money that Planned Parenthood is fighting to win back, right?

Ollstein: It was one pot of money they’re fighting to win back. But yes, the much bigger Medicaid cuts that Congress passed over last summer, those are still in place. And so that’s an order of magnitude more than this pot of Title X family planning money that they just got back. So that aside, I’ve seen a lot of conservatives conflate the two and accuse the Trump administration of violating the law that Congress passed and restoring funding to Planned Parenthood. This is different funding, and it’s a lot less than the cuts that happened. And so I talked to the organizations impacted, and it was clear that even though they’re getting this money back, for some it came too late, like they already closed their doors and shut down clinics in a lot of states, and they can’t reopen them with this chunk of money. This money is when you give a service to a patient, you can then submit for reimbursement. And so if the clinic’s not there, it’s not like they can use this money to, like, reopen the clinic, sign a lease, hire people, etc.  

Rovner: Yeah. The wheels of the courts, as we have seen, have moved very slowly. 

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

So while abortion gets most of the headlines, it’s not the only culture war issue in play. The Supreme Court this week heard oral arguments in a case challenging two of the 27 state laws barring transgender athletes from competing on women’s sports teams. Reporters covering the argument said it seemed unlikely that a majority of justices would strike down the laws, which would allow all of those bans to stand. Meanwhile, the other two branches of the federal government have also weighed in on the gender issue in recent weeks. The House passed a bill in December, sponsored by now former Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene that would make it a felony for anyone to provide gender-affirming care to minors nationwide. And the Department of Health and Human Services issued proposed regulations just before Christmas that wouldn’t go quite that far, but would have roughly the same effect. The regulations would ban hospitals from providing gender-affirming care to minors or risk losing their Medicare and Medicaid funding, and would bar funding for gender-affirming care for minors by Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. At the same time, Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy issued a declaration, which is already being challenged in court, stating that gender-affirming care, quote, “does not meet professionally recognized standards of health care,” and therefore practitioners who deliver it can be excluded from federal health programs. I get that sports team exclusions have a lot of public support, but does the public really support effectively ending all gender-affirming care for minors? That’s what this would do. 

Edney: Well, I think that when a lot of people hear that, they think of surgery, which is the much, much, much, much, much less likely scenario here that we’re even talking about. And so those who are against it have done an effective job of making that the issue. And so there â€¦ who support gender-affirming care, who have looked into it, would see that a lot of this is hormone treatment, things like that, to drugs â€¦  

Rovner: Puberty blockers! 

Edney: â€¦ they’re taking â€” exactly â€” and so it’s not, this isn’t like a permanent under-the-knife type of thing that a lot of people are thinking about, and I think, too, talking about, like mental health, with being able to get some of these puberty blockers, the effect that it can have on a minor who doesn’t want to live the way they’ve been living, so it’s so helpful to them. So I think that there’s just a lot that has, you know, there’s been a lot of misinformation out there about this, and I feel like that that’s kind of winning the day. 

Kenen: I think, like, from the beginning, because, like, five or six years ago was the first time I wrote about this. The playbook has been very much like the anti-abortion playbook. They talk about it in terms of protecting women’s health, and now they’re talking about it in protecting children’s health. And, as Anna said, they’re using words like mutilation. Puberty blockers are not mutilation. Puberty blockers are a medication that delays the onset of puberty, and it is not irreversible. It’s like a brake. You take your foot off the brake, and puberty starts. There’s some controversy about what age and how long, and there’s some possible bone damage. I mean, there’s some questions that are raised that need to be answered, but the conversation that’s going on now â€” most of the experts in this field, who are endocrinologists and psychologists and other people who are working with these kids, cite a lot of data saying that not only this is safe, but it’s beneficial for a kid who really feels like they’re trapped in the wrong body. So you know, I think it’s really important to repeat â€¦ the point that Anna made, you know, 12-year-olds are not getting major surgery. Very few minors are, and when they are, it’s closer â€¦ they may be under 18, it’s rare. But if you’re under 18, you’re closer to 18, it’s later in teens. And it’s not like you walk into an operating room and say, you know, do this to me. There’s years of counseling and evaluation and professional teams. It really did strike a nerve in the campaign. I think Pennsylvania, in particular. This is something that people don’t understand and get very upset about, and the inflammatory language, it’s not creating understanding. 

Rovner: We’ll see how this one plays out. Finally, this week, things at the Department of Health and Human Services continues to be chaotic. In the latest round of “we’re cutting you off because you don’t agree with us,” the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration sent hundreds of letters Tuesday to grantees canceling their funding immediately. It’s not entirely clear how many grants or how much money was involved, but it appeared to be something in the neighborhood of $2 billion â€” that’s around a fifth of SAMHSA’s entire budget. SAMHSA, of course, funds programs that provide addiction and mental health treatment, treatment for homelessness and suicide prevention, among other things. Then, Wednesday night, after a furious backlash from Capitol Hill and just about every mental health and substance abuse group in the country, from what I could tell from my email, the administration canceled the cuts. Did they miscalculate the scope of the reaction here, or was chaos the actual goal in this?  

Edney: That is a great question. I really don’t know the answer. I don’t know what it could serve anyone by doing this and reversing it in 24 hours, as far as the chaos angle, but it does seem, certainly, like there was a miscalculation of how Congress would react to this, and it was a bipartisan reaction that wanted to know why, what is it even your justification? Because these programs do seem to support the priorities of this administration and HHS. 

Rovner: I didn’t count, but I got dozens of emails yesterday.  

Edney: Yeah. 

Rovner: My entire email box was overflowing with people basically freaking out about these cuts to SAMHSA. Joanne, you wanted to say something? 

Kenen: I think that one of the shifts over â€” I’m not exactly sure how many years â€” 7, 8, 9, years, whatever we’ve been dealing with this opioid crisis, the country has really changed and how we see addiction, and that we are much more likely to view addiction not as a criminal justice issue, but as a mental health issue. It’s not that everybody thinks that. It’s not that every lawmaker thinks that, but we have really turned this into, we have seen it as, you know, a health problem and a health problem that strikes red states and blue states. You know, we are all familiar with the “deaths of despair.” Many of us know at least an acquaintance or an acquaintance’s family that have experienced an overdose death. This is a bipartisan shift. It is, you know, you’ve had plenty of conservatives speaking out for both more money and more compassion. So I think that the backlash yesterday, I mean, we saw the public backlash, but I think there was probably a behind-the-scenes â€” some of the “Opioid Belts” are very conservative states, and Republican governors, you know, really saying we’ve had progress. Right? The last couple of years, we have made progress. Fatal overdoses have gone down, and Narcan is available. And just like our inboxes, I think their telephones, they were bombarded.  

Rovner: Yeah. Well, meanwhile, several hundred workers have reportedly been reinstated at the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health â€” that’s a subagency of CDC [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]. Except that those RIF [reduction in force] cancellations came nine months after the original RIFs, which were back in April. Does the administration think these folks are just sitting around waiting to be called back to work? And in news from the National Institutes of Health, Director Jay Bhattacharya told a podcaster last week that the DEI-related [diversity, equity, and inclusion] grants that were canceled and then reinstated due to court orders are likely to simply not be renewed. And at the FDA, former longtime drug regulator Richard Pazdur said at the J.P. Morgan [Healthcare] Conference in San Francisco this week that the firewall between the political appointees at the agency and its career drug reviewers has been, quote, “breached.” How is the rest of HHS expected to actually, you know, function with even so much uncertainty about who works there and who’s calling the shots? 

Ollstein: Not to mention all of this back and forth and chaos and starting and stopping is costing more, is costing taxpayers more. Overall spending is up. After all of the DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] and RIFs and all of it, they have not cut spending at all because it’s more expensive to pay people to be on administrative leave for a long time and then try to bring them back and then shut down a lab and then reopen a lab. And all of this has not only meant, you know, programs not serving people, research not happening, but it hasn’t even saved the government any money, either. 

Kenen: Like, you know, the game we played when we were kids, remember, “Red Light-Green Light,” you know, you’d run in one direction, you run back. And if you were 8 years old, it would end with someone crying. And that’s sort of the way we’re running the government these days [laughs]. The amount of people fired, put on leave. The CDC has had this incredible yo-yoing of people. You can’t even keep track. You don’t even know what email to use if you’re trying to keep in touch with them anymore. The churn, with what logic? It’s, as Alice said, just more expensive, but it’s, it’s also just â€¦ like you can’t get your job done. Even if you want a smaller government, which many of conservatives and Trump people do, you still want certain functions fulfilled. But there’s still a consensus in society that we need some kind of functioning health system and health oversight and health monitoring. I mean, the American public is not against research, and the American public is not against keeping people alive. You know, the inconsistency is pretty mind-boggling. 

Edney: Well, there’s a lot of rank-and-file, but we’re seeing a lot of heads of parts of the agencies where, like at the FDA, with the drug center, or many of the different institutes at NIH that really don’t have anyone in place that is leading them. And I think that that, to me, like this is just my humble opinion, is it kind of seems like the message as anybody can do this part, because it’s all coming from one place. There’s really just one leader, essentially, RFK, or maybe it’s Trump, or they want everyone to do it the way that they’re going to comply with the different, like you said, everyone wants research, but I, Joanne, but I do think they only want certain kinds of research in this case. So it’s been interesting to watch how many leaders in these agencies that are going away and not being replaced. 

Rovner: And all the institutional memory that’s walking out the door. I mean, more people â€” and to Alice’s point about how this hasn’t saved money â€” more people have taken early retirement than have been actually, you know, RIF’d or fired or let go. I mean, they’ve just â€¦ a lot of people have basically, including a lot of leaders of many of these agencies, said, We just don’t want to be here under these circumstances. Bye. Assuming at some point this government does want to use the Department of Health and Human Services to get things done, there might not be the personnel around to actually effectuate it. But we will continue to watch that space. 

OK, that’s this week’s news. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Elisabeth Rosenthal, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast Elisabeth Rosenthal, senior contributing editor at KFF Health News and originator of our “Bill of the Month” series, which in its nearly eight years has analyzed nearly $7 million in dubious, infuriating, or inflated medical charges. Libby also wrote the latest “Bill of the Month,” which we’ll talk about in a minute. Libby, welcome back to the podcast. 

Elisabeth Rosenthal: Thanks for having me back. 

Rovner: So before we get to this month’s patient, can you reflect for a moment on the impact this series has had, and how frustrated are you that eight years on, it’s as relevant as it was when we began? 

Rosenthal: We were worried it wouldn’t last a year, and here we are, eight years later, still finding plenty to write about. I mean, we’ve had some wins. I think we helped contribute to the No Surprises Act being passed. There are states clamping down on facility fees, you know, and making sure that when you get something done in a hospital rather than an outpatient clinic, it’s the same cost. The country’s starting to address drug prices. But, you know, we seem to be the billing police, and that’s not good. We’ve gotten a lot of bills written off for our individual patients. Suddenly, when a reporter calls, they’re like, Oh, that was a mistake or Yeah, we’re going to write that off. And I’m like, You’re not writing that off; that shouldn’t have been billed. So sadly, the series is still going strong, and medical billing has proved endlessly creative. And you know, I think the sad thing for me is our success is a sign of a deeply, deeply dysfunctional system that has left, as we know, you know, 100 million adult Americans with medical debt. So we will keep going until it’s solved, I hope. 

Rovner: Well, getting on to this month’s patient, he gives new meaning to the phrase “It must have been something I ate.” Tell us what it was and how he ended up in the emergency room. 

Rosenthal: Well, Maxwell [Kruzic] loves eating spicy foods, but he’s never had a problem with it. And suddenly, one night, he had just excruciating, crippling abdominal pain. He drove himself to the emergency room. It was so bad he had to stop three times, and when he got there, it was mostly on the right-lower quadrant. You know, the doctors were so convinced, as he was, that he had appendicitis, that they called a surgeon right away, right? So they were all like, ready to go to the operating room. And then the scan came back, and it was like, whoops, his appendix is normal. And then, oh, could he have kidney stones? And it’s like no sign of that either. And finally, he thought, or someone asked, Well, what did you eat last night? And of course, Maxwell had ordered the hottest chili peppers from a bespoke chili pepper-growing company in New Mexico. They have some chili pepper rating of 2 million [Scoville heat units], which is, like, through the roof, and it was a reaction to the chili peppers. I didn’t even know that could happen, and I trained as a doctor, but I guess your intestines don’t like really, really, really hot stuff. 

Rovner: So in the end, he was OK. And the story here isn’t even really about what kind of care he got, or how much it cost. The $8,000 the hospital charged for his few hours in the ER doesn’t seem all that out of line compared to some of the bills we’ve seen. What was most notable in this case was the fact that the bill didn’t actually come until two years later. How much was he asked to pay two years after the hot pepper incident? 

Rosenthal: Well, he was asked to pay a little over $2,000, which was his coinsurance for the emergency room visit. And as he said, you know, $8,000 â€¦ now we go, well, that’s not bad. I mean, all they did, actually, was do a couple of scans and give him some IV fluids. But in this day and age, you’re like, wow, he got away â€” you know, from a “Bill of a Month” perspective, he got away cheap, right? 

Rovner: But I would say, is it even legal to send a bill two years after the fact? Who sends a bill two years later? 

Rosenthal: That’s the problem, like, and Maxwell â€” he’s a pretty smart guy, so he was checking his portal repeatedly. I mean, he paid something upfront at the ER, and he kept thinking, I must owe something. And he checked and he checked and he checked and it kept saying zero. He actually called his insurer and to make sure that was right. And they said, No, no, no, it’s right. You owe zero. And then, you know, after like, six months, he thought, I guess I owe zero. But then he didn’t think about it, and then almost two years later, this bill arrives in the mail, and he’s like, What?! And what I discovered, which is a little disturbing, is it is not, I wouldn’t say normal, but we see a bunch of these ghost bills at “Bill of the Month,” and in many cases, it’s legal, because of what was going on in those two-year periods. And of course, I called the hospital, I called the insurer, and they were like, Yeah, you know, someone was away on vacation, and someone left their job, and we couldn’t â€¦ you know, the hospital billed them correctly. And the hospital said, No, we didn’t. And they were just kind of doing the usual back-end negotiations to figure out what a service is worth. And when they finally agreed two years later what should be paid, that’s when they sent Maxwell the bill. And the problem is, whether it’s legal really depends on your insurance contracts, and whether they allow this kind of late billing. I do not know to this day if Maxwell’s did, because as soon as I called the insurer and the hospital, they were like, Never mind. He doesn’t owe anything. And you know, as he said, he’s a geological engineer. He has lots of clients, and as he said, you know, if I called them two years later and said, Whoops, I forgot to bill for something, they would be like, Forget it! you know. So I do think this is something that needs to be addressed at a policy level, as we so often discover on “Bill of the Month.” 

Rovner: So what should you do if you get one of these ghost bills? I should say I’m still negotiating bills from a surgery that I had six months ago. So I guess I should count myself lucky. 

Rosenthal: Well, I think you should check with your insurer and check with the hospital. I think more with your insurer â€” if the contract says this is legal to bill. It’s unclear to me, in this case, whether it was. The hospital was very much like, Oh, we made a mistake; because it took so long, we actually couldn’t bill Maxwell. So I think in his case, it probably was in the contract that this was too late to bill. But, you know, I think a lot of hospitals, I hate to say it, have this attitude. Well, doesn’t hurt to try, you know, maybe they’ll pay it. And people are afraid of bills, right? They pay them.  

Rovner: I know the feeling. 

Rosenthal: Yeah, I do think, you know, they should check with their insurer about whether there’s a statute of limitations, essentially, on billing, because there may well be and I would say it’s a great asymmetry, because if you submit an insurance claim more than six months late, they can say, Well, we won’t pay this. 

Rovner: And just to tie this one up with a bow, I assume that Maxwell has changed his pepper-eating ways, at least modified them? 

Rosenthal: He said he will never eat scorpion peppers again. 

Rovner: Libby Rosenthal, thank you so much. 

Rosenthal: Oh, sure. Thanks for having me. 

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

Edney: Sure. So my extra credit is from MedPage Today: “.” I appreciated this article because it answered some questions that I had, too, after the sweeping change to the childhood vaccine schedule. There was just a lot of discussions I had about, you know, well, what does this really mean on the ground? And will parents be confused? Will pediatricians â€” how will they be talking about this? You know, will they stick to the schedule we knew before? And there was an article in JAMA Perspectives that lays out, essentially, to clinicians, you know, that they should not fear malpractice .. issues if they’re going to talk about the old schedule and not adhere to the newer schedule. And so it lays out some of those issues. And I thought that was really helpful. 

Rovner: Yeah, this was a big question that I had, too. Alice, why don’t you go next? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so I have a piece from ProPublica. It’s called “.” So this is about how there’s been this huge push on the right to end public water fluoridation that has succeeded in a couple places and could spread more. And the proponents of doing that say that it’s fine because there are all these other sources of fluoride. You can get a treatment at the dentist, you can get it in stuff you buy at the drugstore and take yourself. But at the same time, the people who arepushing for ending fluoridated public drinking water are also pushing for restricting those other sources. There have been state and federal efforts to crack down on them, plus all of the just rhetoric about fluoride, which is very misleading. It misrepresents studies about its alleged neurological impacts. But it also, that kind of rhetoric makes people afraid to have fluoride in any form, and people are very worried about that, what that’s going to do to the nation’s teeth? 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s like vaccines. The more you talk it down, the less people want to do it. Joanne. 

Kenen: This is a piece by Dhruv Khullar in The New Yorker called “,” and it was really great, because there’s certain things I think that we who â€” like, I don’t know how all of you watch it â€” but like, there’s certain things that didn’t even strike me, because I’m so used to writing about, like, the connection between poverty, social determinants of health, and, like, of course, people who come to the ED [emergency department] have, you know, homelessness problems and can’t afford food and all that. But Dhruv talked about how it sort of brought that home to him, how our social safety net, the holes in it, end up in our EDs. And he also talked about some of it is dramatized more for TV, that not everybody’s heart stops every 15 minutes. He said that sort of happens to one patient a day. But he talked about compassion and how that is rediscovered in this frenetic ED/ER scene. It’s just a very thoughtful piece about why we all love that TV show. And it’s not just because of Noah Wyle. 

Rovner: Although that helps. My extra credit this week is from The New York Times. It’s called “,” by Maxine Joselow. And while it’s not about HHS, it most definitely is about health. It seems that for the first time in literally decades, the Environmental Protection Agency will no longer calculate the cost to human health when setting clean air rules for ozone and fine particulate matter, quoting the story: “That would most likely lower costs for companies while resulting in dirtier air.” This is just another reminder that the federal government is charged with ensuring the help of Americans from a broad array of agencies, aside from HHS â€” or in this case, not so much.  

OK, that’s this week’s show. As always, thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. We also had help this week from producer 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, at kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can find me still on X , or on Bluesky . Where are you folks hanging these days? Alice. 

Ollstein: Mostly on Bluesky  and still on X . 

Rovner: Joanne. 

Kenen: I’m mostly on  or on  . 

Rovner: Anna. 

Edney:  or X . 

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

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, July 24, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Today we are joined via videoconference by Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call. 

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there. 

Rovner: Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: And my Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleague Julie Appleby. 

Julie Appleby: Hi. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have the first of a two-part series marking the 60th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, which is July 30. Medicare historian and University of North Carolina professor Jonathan Oberlander takes us on a brief tour of the history of Medicare. Next week we’ll do the same with Medicaid. But first, this week’s news. 

So, we have talked a lot about the changes to Medicaid as a result of the Trump tax and spending law, but there are big changes coming to the Affordable Care Act, too, which is why I have asked my colleague Julie Appleby to join us this week. Julie, what can people who buy insurance from the ACA marketplaces expect for 2026? 

Appleby: Well, there’s a lot of changes. Let’s talk about premiums first, OK? So there’s a couple of things going on with premiums. It’s kind of a double whammy. So, on the one hand, insurers are asking for higher premiums next year to cover different things. So in the summer they put out their rates for the following year. So there’s been a lot of uncertainty this year, so that’s playing into it as well. But what they’re asking for is some money for rising medical and labor costs, the usual culprits, drug costs going up, that kind of thing. But they’re tacking on some extra percentages to deal with some of the policy changes advanced by the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress. And one key factor is the uncertainty over whether Congress is going to extend those more generous covid-era tax subsidies. So we’re looking at premiums going up, and the ask right now, what they’re asking for, the median ask, is 15%, which is a lot higher. Last year when KFF did the same survey, it was 7%. So we’re getting premium increase requests of a fairly substantial amount. In fact, they say it’s about the highest in five years.  

And then on top of that, it’s still not clear what’s going to happen with those more generous subsidies. And if the more generous subsidies go away, if Congress does not reinstate them, there’ll be costs from that, and people could be paying maybe 75% more than they’re paying this year. And we could talk some more about that. But that’s kind of the double whammy we’re looking at, rising premiums and the potential that these more generous subsidies won’t be extended by Congress. 

Rovner: So there were some things that were specifically in that tax and spending bill that drive up premiums for the ACA, right? Besides not extending the additional subsidies. 

Appleby: Well, that’s the biggest piece of it, but yes. They’re tacking on about 4% of that 15% medium increase is related to the uncertainty. Well, they’re assuming that the tax credits will expire. It was not in the bill. Congress could still act. They have until the end of the year. They could extend those subsidies. So that’s about 4%. But one of the things that people haven’t really been talking about are tariffs, and some of the insurers are asking for 3% because they expect drug costs to go up. So there’s those things that are going on. And then there’s just sort of the uncertainty going forward for insurers about what’s going to happen with enrollment as a result of both these premium increases, and then looking a little bit further down the line, there are some changes in the tax and spending bill and some rules that are going to substantially reduce enrollment. 

So insurers are worried that the people who are going to sign up for coverage are the ones who are most motivated, and those are probably going to be the people who have some health problems. And the folks who aren’t as motivated are going to look at the prices and maybe the additional red tape and will drop out and leave them with a sicker and more expensive pool to cover. So all of that is factoring in with these premium rate increases that they’re trying to put together. Now remember, a lot of these insurers put in these premium increase requests before they knew the outcome of the tax and spending legislation. They could still modify them. 

Rovner: And Jessie, as Julie said, there’s still a chance that Republicans will change their minds on the increased subsidies and tack them onto something. And there’s a big bipartisan health bill on drug prices and other expiring programs that still could get done before the end of the year? Yes? 

Hellmann: There have been discussions about a bipartisan health bill, though the main author of it, Sen. Bill Cassidy, himself even seems kind of skeptical. I talked to him this week, and he’s like, It might happen, it might not. But there are a bunch of other health extenders that Congress will need to get to, like telehealth, some Medicare and Medicaid payment things. So there’s definitely something to attach it to. Republicans are not friendly to the ACA. As you mentioned, they made a bunch of changes to it in this tax and spending bill. So I think the people I talk to think it’s a long shot that they’re going to pass billions of dollars in a subsidy extension in this bill. Though there are Republicans who do care about this issue, like Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. She’s kind of been sounding the alarm on this. She thinks that Congress needs to do something to mitigate which could be very big premium increases for people. So there is some pressure there, but it doesn’t seem like the people who should be thinking about this right now have started thinking about it much yet. 

Rovner: One presumes they’ll start thinking about it when they start seeing these actual premium increases. I sound like a broken record, but we keep saying, the people who these premium increases are going to hit the hardest are voters in red states. 

Appleby: Last year, in 2024, 56% of ACA enrollees lived in Republican congressional districts and 76% were in states won by President [Donald] Trump. So I’ve got to think they’re thinking about it. When I did the reporting on this story, I spoke with a couple of folks, and they said that some people in Congress are looking at maybe they can mess around or maybe they can do something with the subsidies that’s not keeping them as they are but might deal with a piece of it. For example, there is something called a subsidy cliff. So if you make more than 400% of the federal poverty level, you used to not get any subsidies. That would come back if they don’t extend this. And so 400% of the federal poverty level, you make a dollar more, you don’t get a subsidy. So this year — and this year will be the numbers that next year’s rates are based on — $62,600 for one person is 400% of the federal poverty level and $84,600 for a couple. So people are going to start getting, if they don’t extend the tax credits, they’re going to start getting notification about how much they owe for premiums next year. 

And this is going to be one of the first effects that people are going to see from all these changes in Washington, the tax and spending bill and the other things, when they get these premiums for January. And if they make even a dollar over that, they’re not going to get any subsidy at all. So what I’m told by some of my sources is that maybe they’re thinking about raising that cliff, maybe keeping the cliff but maybe moving it up a little bit to 500% or 600%. But it’s totally unclear. Like you all are saying, nothing may happen. We may go through Dec. 31 and nothing happens, but I’m hearing that they are maybe talking a little bit about that. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: Yeah. And there’s a couple interesting dynamics that I think could influence the politics of this and what Congress feels motivated to do or not do. So, like Julie was saying, this would hit in January. And a lot of the stuff in the bill they just passed is designed to not hit until the midterms, but this would hit before the midterms. And so that’s got to be on their minds. And then, like you were saying, not only would this hit Republican voters the hardest, but a reason that’s more true today than it was the last time they took a round at the Affordable Care Act in 2017 is because all of these red states have expanded since then. You have a lot more enrollment, even in states that didn’t expand, and so, like we mentioned, are going to have a lot of Republican voters who get hit and have this sticker shock. And the party in power in Congress and the White House could be to blame. 

Rovner: Yeah. One of the things in 2017, there were, what, 12 million people who were buying coverage on the marketplaces. And now there’s 24 million people who are buying coverage on the marketplaces. So it’s a lot more people, just plain, in addition to a lot more people who are likely in some of these red states. So we will follow this closely. 

Meanwhile, the fallout continues as people find out more about the new tax and spending law. The Congressional Budget Office is out with on the bill as enacted. It’s now estimating that 10 million more people will be uninsured in 2034 as a result of the new law. That’s down from the 11.8 million estimate of the original Senate bill. That’s because the parliamentarian bounced the provisions that would’ve punished states using their own money to cover undocumented people. That was not allowed to be considered under the reconciliation procedure. 

We also have a brand-new poll from my colleagues here at KFF that find that more people know about the law than did before it passed, and it’s still unpopular. We’ll to those numbers so you can see just how unpopular it is. As we’ve discussed, lots of Republican senators and House members expressed concern about the impact the Medicaid cuts could have on rural hospitals in particular. So much so that a $50 billion fund was eventually added to the bill to offset roughly $155 billion in rural Medicaid cuts. Even more confusing, that $50 billion is likely to be distributed before some of the cuts begin — as you were just saying, Alice — and not necessarily to just rural areas. So is this $50 billion fund really just a big lobbying bonanza? 

Ollstein: Well, it’s certainly designed to function as softening the blow. But these are different things. The hospital could be propped up and stay open, but if no one has Medicaid to go there, that’s still a problem. And the money is sort of acknowledging that a bunch of people are going to lose their coverage, because it’s meant to give the hospital something to use for uncompensated care for people who have no coverage and come to the ER. But that still means that people who lost their insurance because of other provisions in the bill, they might not be going to their preventive care appointments that would avoid them having to go to the emergency room in the first place, which costs all of us more in the long run. So there’s a lot of skepticism about the efficacy of this. 

Rovner: Jessie, are you seeing the lobbying already begin for who’s going to get this $50 billion? 

Hellmann: Yeah, because the legislation leaves a lot of how the money will be handed out to the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] secretary, and so that’s something that they’re going to start thinking about. It reminds me a lot of the provider relief fund that was set up during covid. And that didn’t go very well. There were lots of complaints that providers were getting the funding that didn’t need the funding, and the small safety net hospitals weren’t getting enough of the funding. So I’m wondering if they’re going to revisit how that went and try to learn any lessons from it. And then at the same time, like Alice said, this just isn’t a lot of money. It’s not going to offset some of the pain to rural providers that the bill has caused. 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, another piece that we will be watching. Meanwhile, the cuts to SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] food benefits conflict with another stated goal of this administration, improving health by getting people to eat healthier food. Except, as we know, healthier food is often more expensive. Other than not letting people buy soda and candy with their SNAP cards, has the administration tried to address this contradiction at all? I’m seeing a lot of blank stares. I’m assuming that the answer to that is no. We’re hearing so much about food and unhealthy food, and we’re getting rid of seed oils and we’re getting rid of dyes, but at the same time, it’s the biggest cut ever to nutrition assistance, and yet nobody’s really talking about it, right? 

Appleby: Sounds like, I think, the states are really worried, obviously, because they’re going to have to make up the difference if they can. And so what other programs are they going to cut? So I’m sure they are talking with folks in Congress, but I don’t know how much leverage they’re going to have. Do you guys have any idea whether the states, is there anything else that they can do to try to get some of this funding? 

Rovner: There’s no — I’ve seen no indication. As we said, there’s already some buyer’s remorse on the health side. Last week we talked about [Sen.] Josh Hawley introducing legislation to restore some of the Medicaid cuts that he just voted for, but I haven’t seen anybody talking about restoring any of these nutrition assistance cuts or any of the other cuts, right? 

Appleby: Right. And from what I’ve read, the SNAP cuts won’t fully take effect until after the midterm elections. So maybe we’re just not hearing about it as much because it hasn’t really hit home yet. People are still trying to figure out: What does all this mean? 

Rovner: Well, one thing that has hit home yet, I’ve wanted for a while to highlight what some of the changes to immigration policy are going to mean for health care. It’s not just ending legal status for people who came and have lived in the U.S. legally for years, or reinterpreting, again, the 1996 welfare law to declare ineligible for Medicaid and other programs many legal immigrants who are not yet permanent residents but who have been getting benefits because they had been made legally eligible for them by Congress and the president. One of the big changes to policy came to light last week when it was revealed that immigration officials are now being given access to Medicaid enrollment information, including people’s physical addresses. Why is this such a big deal? Alice, you’ve been following this whole immigration and health care issue, right? 

Ollstein: Yes. Experts are warning that this is very dangerous from a public health perspective. If you deter people from physically wanting to visit a clinic or a doctor out of fear of ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] enforcement there, which we’ve already seen — we’ve already seen ICE try to barge into hospitals and seize people. And so fear of that is keeping people away from their appointments. That makes it harder to manage chronic illnesses. That makes it harder to manage infectious diseases, which obviously impacts the whole community and the whole society. We all bear those costs. We live in an interconnected world. What impacts part of the population impacts the rest of the population. 

And so what you mentioned about the Medicaid data, as well, deters people who are perfectly eligible, who are not undocumented, who have legal status, who are eligible for Medicaid. It deters them from enrolling, which again deters people from using that health care and keeping their conditions in check. And so there’s a lot of concern about how this could play out and how long the effect could last, because there are studies showing that policies from the first Trump administration were still deterring immigrants from enrolling even after they were lifted by the Biden administration. 

Rovner: And we should point out that this whole address thing is a big issue because, as you say, there, maybe, there are a lot of families where there are people who live there who are perfectly, as you say, perfectly eligible. You’re not eligible for Medicaid if you’re not here legally. But they may live in a family, in a household with people who are not here with documentation, and they’re afraid now that if they have their addresses, that ICE is going to come knocking at their door to get, if not them, then their relatives or people who are staying with them. 

Appleby: Yeah. And I think it’s also affecting employment. So nursing homes are already saying that they’re losing some people who are losing their protected status or this or that. So they’re losing employees. Some of them are reporting, from what I’ve read, that they are getting fewer applicants for jobs. This is going to make it even tougher. Many of them already have staffing issues, and the nursing home industry has said, Hey, how come we’re not getting any special consideration? Like maybe some of the farmers or other places are supposedly getting, but I don’t know if that’s actually happening. But why aren’t they being considered and why are they losing some of their workers who are here under protected status, which they’re going to lose? And some of them may also be undocumented — I don’t know. But that’s just the nursing homes. Think of all the people around the country who need help in their homes, and maybe they’re taking care of elderly parents and they hire people, and some of those people may not be documented. And that’s a vast number of folks that we’re never going to hear about, but if they start losing their caregivers as well, I think that’s going to be a big impact as we go forward. 

Rovner: And it’s also skilled health workers who are here on visas who are immigrants. 

Appleby: Right. 

Rovner: In rural areas in particular, doctors and nurses are usually people who have been recruited from other countries because there are not enough people or not health professionals living in those rural areas. The knock-on effect of this, I think, is bigger than anybody has really sort of looked at yet. 

Ollstein: Absolutely. States have even been debating and in some cases passing legislation to make it easier for foreign medical workers to come practice here, making it so that they don’t have to redo their residency if they already did their residency somewhere abroad, things like that, because there’s such shortages right now, especially in primary care and maternal care and a lot of different areas. 

Rovner: Yeah. This is another area that I think we’re only just beginning to see the impact of. Well, there is also news this week in Trump administration cuts that are not from the budget bill. from the Congressional Budget Office that’s separate from the latest budget reconciliation estimate, analysts said that the Trump administration’s proposed cuts to the budgets of the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration could reduce the number of new drugs coming to market. That would not only mean fewer new treatments and cures but also a hit to the economy. And apparently it doesn’t even take into account the uncertainty that’s making many researchers consider offers to decamp to Canada or Europe or other countries. There’s a real multiplier effect here on what’s a big part of U.S. innovation. 

Hellmann: I’ve been talking to people on the Hill about this who traditionally have been big supporters of the NIH and authorizing and appropriating increases for the NIH every year. And they are still kind of playing a little coy. The White House is suggesting a budget cut at the NIH of 40%, which would be massive. It’s so massive that the CBO report was like: We cannot estimate the impact of this. We’re going to estimate a smaller hypothetical. Because they just can’t. 

And so I think it’ll be interesting to see how it plays out in the appropriations process. You do have senators who are more publicly concerned about it, like Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who obviously is on the Appropriations Committee. So we might see a situation where Congress ignores the budget request. That usually happens, but these are weird times. And so I think there are questions about, even if they do, if Congress does proceed as normal and appropriate the money that they typically do for NIH, what is the administration going to do with it? They’ve already signaled that they’re fine not spending money that has been appropriated by Congress. And so I think that there’s a big question about that. 

Rovner: At some point, this has to come to a head. We’ve been — as I say, I feel like a broken record on this. We talk about it a lot, that this is money that’s been appropriated by Congress and signed by the president and that we keep hearing that people, particularly at NIH, are not being allowed, for one reason or another, to send out. This is technically illegal impoundment. And at some point it comes to a head. We know that Russ Vought, the head of the Office of Management Budget, thinks that the anti-impoundment law is illegal and that he can just ignore it. And that’s a lot of what’s happening right now. I’m still surprised that it’s the end of July and Congress is going out for the August recess — and Jessie, I know you’re talking to people and they’re playing coy — that they haven’t jumped up and down yet. The NIH in particular has been such a bipartisanly supported entity. If you’ve ever been around the campus in Bethesda, all of the buildings are named after various appropriators of both parties. This is something that is really dear to Congress, and yet they are just basically sitting there holding their tongues. At some point, won’t it stop? 

Hellmann: I think maybe they’re hoping to say something through whatever legislation that they come out with, whatever spending legislation. But, yeah, they’re not being very forceful about it. And I think people are obviously just very afraid of making the Trump administration angry. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has said this, like she kind of fears the repercussions of making the president mad. And he’s on this spending-cut spree. So I definitely expected more anger, especially the bipartisan history of the NIH has lasted so long. It’s kind of a weird thing to see happen. 

Rovner: Yeah. Of all the things that I didn’t expect to see happen this year, that has to be the thing that I most didn’t expect to see happen this year, which was basically an administration just stopping funding research and Congress basically sitting back and letting it happen. It is still sort of boggling to my mind. Well, we also learned this week about hospitals stopping gender-affirming care of all kinds for minors, under increasing pressure from the administration. And we’re not just talking about red states anymore. Children’s hospitals in California and here in Washington, D.C., have now announced they won’t be offering the care anymore. Wasn’t it just a few months ago when people were moving from red states to blue states to get their kids care? Now what are they going to be able to do? 

Ollstein: I think a lot of what we’re seeing play out in the gender-affirming care fight, it reminds me of the abortion rights fight. There are a lot of themes about the formal health care system being very, very risk-averse. And so rather than test the limits of the law, rather than continuing to provide services while things are still pingponging back and forth in courts, which is the case, they’re saying, just out of caution, We’re just going to stop altogether. And that is cutting off a lot of families from care that they were relying on. And there’s a lot of concern about the physical and mental health impacts on — again, this is very small compared to the general population of trans kids — but it’s going to hit a lot of people. And yeah, like you said, this is happening in blue states as well. There’s sort of nowhere for them to go. 

Rovner: Yeah. We’re going to see how this one also plays out. Well, turning to abortion, we talked last week about how a federal appeals court upheld a West Virginia law aimed at banning the abortion pill mifepristone. And I wondered why we weren’t hearing more from the drug industry about the dangers of state-by-state undermining of the FDA. And lo and behold, here come the drugmakers. In comments letters to the FDA, more than 50 biotech leaders and investors are urging the agency to disregard a controversial study from the anti-abortion think tank the Ethics and Public Policy Center that officials are citing as a reason to reopen consideration of the drug’s approval. Alice, remind us what this study is and why people are so upset about it. 

Ollstein: So it’s not a study, first of all. Even its supporters in the anti-abortion movement admitted, in private in a Zoom meeting that I obtained access to, that it is not a study. This is an analysis that they created. They are not disclosing the dataset that it is based on. It did not go through peer review. And so they are citing their own sort of white-paper analysis put out by an explicitly anti-abortion think tank to argue that abortion pills are more dangerous than previously known or that the FDA has previously acknowledged. There’s been a lot of fact checks and debunks of some of their main points that we’ve been through on this podcast also before. The Washington Post did if people want to look that up. But suffice it to say that that has not deterred members of Congress from citing this and to pressure the FDA. 

And now you have the FDA sort of promising to do a review. If you look at the exact wording of what [FDA Commissioner Marty] Makary said, I’m not sure. He said something like, Like we monitor the safety of all drugs, we’re going to blah, blah, blah. And so it’s unclear if there’s anything specific going on. But the threat that there could be, like you said, is really shaking up the drugmaking industry. And you’re hearing a lot of the same alarms that we heard from the pharmaceutical industry when this was before the Supreme Court, when they were afraid the Supreme Court would second-guess the FDA’s judgment and reimpose restrictions on mifepristone. And they’re saying, Look, if we can’t count on this being a process that just takes place based on the science and not politics and not courts coming in 25 years later and saying actually no, then why would we invest so much money in developing drugs if we can’t even count on the rules being fair and staying the same? 

Rovner: Yeah. We will see how this goes. I was surprised, though. We know that that Texas case that the Supreme Court managed to not reach the point of, because the plaintiffs didn’t have standing, is still alive elsewhere. But I didn’t realize that this other case was still sort of chugging along. So we’ll see when the Supreme Court gets another bite at it. Meanwhile, the fight over funding for Planned Parenthood — whose Medicaid eligibility, at least for one year, was canceled by the new budget law — continues in court. This week a judge in Massachusetts gave the group a partial win by blocking the defunding for some smaller clinics and those that don’t perform abortions, but that ruling replaced a more blanket delay on the defunding. So many clinics are now having their funding stopped while the court fight continues. Alice, what’s the impact here of these Planned Parenthood clinics closing down? It’s not just abortion that we’re talking about. In fact, it’s not even primarily abortion that we’re talking about. 

Ollstein: Absolutely. So this is one, it’s set to hit a lot of clinics in states where abortion is legal. And so these are the clinics that are serving a lot of people traveling from red states. And so there’s already an issue with wait times, and this is set to make it worse. But that’s just for abortion. Like you said, this is also set to hit a bunch of clinics in states where abortion is illegal and where these clinics are only providing other services, like birth control, like STI [sexually transmitted infection] testing. And at the same time we’re having a lot of other funding frozen, and so this could really be tough for some of these areas where there aren’t a lot of providers, and especially there are not a lot of providers who accept Medicaid. 

Rovner: Meanwhile, a number of states are passing conscience laws that let health professionals opt out of things like doing abortions or providing gender-affirming care if they violate their beliefs. Well, in Tennessee now we have a story of a pregnant woman who says her doctor refused to provide her with prenatal care, because she’s not married to her partner of 15 years. She said at a congressional town hall that her doctor said her marital status violated his Christian beliefs, and he’s apparently protected by the new Tennessee state law called the Medical Ethics Defense Act. I’ve heard of doctors refusing to prescribe birth control for unmarried women, but this is a new one to me, and I’ve been doing this for a very long time. Are these just unintended consequences of these things that maybe state lawmakers didn’t think a lot about? Or are they OK with doctors saying, We’re not going to provide you with prenatal care if you’re pregnant and not married? 

Ollstein: So one, as we just said, we’re in a situation where there is such a shortage of providers and such a shortage of providers who accept certain coverage that being turned away by one place, you might not be able to get an appointment somewhere else, depending where you live. And so this isn’t just an issue of, Oh, well, just don’t go to that doctor who believes that. People have very limited choices in a lot of circumstances. But I— 

Rovner: Apparently this woman in Tennessee said she’s having to go to Virginia to get her prenatal care. 

Ollstein: Well, exactly. Yeah. Exactly. This isn’t like people have tons of options. And also this is an example of a slippery slope, of if you allow people to be able to refuse service for this reason, for that reason, what else could happen? And some states have more legal protections for things like marital status, and some do not. And so it’s worth thinking through what could be sort of the next wave. 

Rovner: Well, we’re certainly going to see what the outcome of this could be. Well, before we end our news segment this week, I want to give a shoutout to tennis legend Venus Williams, who at age 45 won a singles match at a professional tournament here in Washington this week and said in her post-match interview that she came back to playing because she needed the pro tour’s health insurance to take care of several chronic conditions that she has. So see, even rich athletes need their health insurance. All right. That is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with Medicare historian Jonathan Oberlander, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome Jonathan Oberlander to the podcast. He’s a professor of social medicine, professor of health policy and management, and adjunct professor of political science at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill and one of the nation’s leading experts on Medicare. Jon, welcome to “What the Health?” 

Jonathan Oberlander: Great to see you, Julie. 

Rovner: So Medicare, to me at least, remains the greatest paradox in the paradox that is the U.S. health care system. It is at once both so popular and so untouchable that it’s considered the third rail of politics, yet at its core it’s a painfully out-of-date and meager benefit that nevertheless threatens to go bankrupt on a regular basis. How did we get here? 

Oberlander: Wow. So let’s talk about the benefits for a minute. And I think one of the things we can say about Medicare in 2025 as we mark this 60th anniversary is it still bears the imprint of Medicare in 1965. And when Medicare was designed as a program — and the idea really dates back to the early 1950s — it was not seen as a comprehensive benefit. It was intended to pay for the most consequential costs of medical care, for acute care costs. And so when it was enacted in 1965, the benefits were incomplete. And the problem is, as you know very well, they haven’t been added to all that much. And here we have a population, and all of us know as we get older, we generally don’t get healthier. I wish it was true, but it’s not. Older persons deal with all kinds of complex medical issues and have a lot of medical needs, and yet Medicare’s benefits are very limited, so limited that actually a very small percentage of Medicare beneficiaries have only Medicare. Most Medicare beneficiaries have Medicare plus something else. And that may be an individual private plan that they purchase called a Medigap plan, or maybe a declining number of people have retiree health insurance that supplements Medicare. 

Some low-income Medicare beneficiaries have Medicaid as well as Medicare and they are dual-eligible. Some Medicare beneficiaries have extra benefits through the Medicare Advantage program, which I’m sure— 

Rovner: We’ll get to. 

Oberlander: —we’ll have a lot to say. So the bottom line, though, is Medicare has grown. It has, what, about 70 million Americans rely on Medicare. But the benefit package — with some intermittent exceptions that are significant, such as the addition of outpatient prescription drugs in 2006 — really has not kept pace. 

Rovner: So let’s go back to the beginning. What was the problem that Medicare set out to solve? 

Oberlander: Well, it was both a substantive problem and a political problem. The origins of Medicare are in the ashes, the failure, of the Truman administration proposals for national health insurance during the mid- and late 1940s. And after they had lost repeatedly, health reformers decided they needed a new strategy. So instead of national health insurance, what today we would call a single-payer, federal-government-run program for everybody, they trimmed their ambitions down to, initially, just hospital insurance, 60 days of hospital insurance for elderly Social Security beneficiaries. And that was it. And they thought if they just focused on older Americans, maybe they would tamp down the controversy and the opposition and the American Medical Association and charges of socialized medicine, all things that are really throwing a wrench into plans for national health insurance. It didn’t quite work out as they thought. It took about 14 years from the time Medicare was proposed to enact it. And there was a big, divisive, controversial debate about Medicare’s enactment. But it was fundamentally a solution to that political problem of, how do you enact government health insurance in the United States? You pick a more sympathetic population. 

Now, there was a substantive problem, which was in the 1940s and especially 1950s, private health insurance was growing in the United States for Americans who are working-age, and that growth of employer-sponsored health insurance really left out retirees. They were expensive. Commercial insurers didn’t want to cover them. And the uninsured rate, if you can believe it, for people over age 65, before Medicare, was around 50%. Not 15 but five zero, 50%. And so here you had a population that had more medical needs, was more expensive, and they had less access to health insurance than younger people. And Medicare was created in part to end that disparity and give them access to reliable coverage. 

Rovner: So as you mentioned, Medicare was initially just aimed at elderly Social Security recipients. What were some of the biggest benefit and population changes as the years went by? 

Oberlander: So in terms of populations in 1972, Medicare added coverage for persons who have end-stage renal disease, so people who need dialysis no matter what the age. It’s a lifesaving technology. They can qualify for Medicare. It didn’t really make sense to add it to Medicare — it’s just it was there. So they added it to Medicare. And also a population we don’t talk nearly enough about, younger Americans with permanent disabilities who are recipients of Social Security Disability Insurance. For a couple of years they qualify for Medicare as well and are a very important part in the Medicare population. Beyond that, Medicare’s covered population has not really changed all that much since the beginning, which actually would be a great disappointment to the architects of Medicare, who thought the program would expand to eventually cover everybody. 

In terms of benefits, the benefit package has been remarkably stable, for better and actually probably for worse, with the exception of, for example, the addition of outpatient prescription drug coverage, which came online in 2006, the addition of coverage for various preventive services such as mammography and cancer screenings. But Medicare still does not cover long-term stays in nursing homes. Many Americans think it does. They will be disappointed to find out it does not. Medicare does not cover, generally, hearing or vision or dental services. Traditional Medicare run by the government does not have a cap on the amount of money that beneficiaries can spend in a year on deductibles and copayments and so forth. So really its benefits remain quite limited. 

Rovner: So Medicare is also the biggest payer in the nation’s health care system and for decades set the standard in how private insurance covered and paid for health care. So let’s talk about privatization. Medicare Advantage, the private health plan alternative to traditional Medicare, is now more than half the program, both in terms of people and in terms of budget. Is this the future of Medicare? Or will we look back in many years and see it as kind of a temporary diversion? 

Oberlander: I think it’s the present and probably the future. The future is always so hard to predict, Julie, because it’s unwritten. But this is really a shocking outcome historically, because what Medicare’s architects expected was that the program was going to expand government health insurance to all Americans, first with the older population, then adding children, then adding everybody. Did not turn out that way. The original aspiration was Medicare for all, through any incremental means. Instead, 60 years later, we don’t have Medicare for all, but Medicare is mostly privatized. It’s a hybrid program with a public and private component that increasingly is dominated by private insurance. And the fact that over half of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in these private plans is a stunning development historically, by the way with lots of implications politically, because that’s an important new political force in Medicare that you have these large private plans and it’s changed Medicare politics. 

I don’t think Medicare Advantage is going anywhere. I think the question is, how big is it going to get? And I’m not sure any of us know. It’s been on a growth trajectory for a long time. And the question is — given that all the studies show that Medicare Advantage plans are overpaid, and overpaid by a lot, by the federal government, and it’s losing a lot of money on Medicare Advantage, and it’s never saved money — is there going to come a point where they actually clamp down? There’ve been some incremental efforts to try and restrain payments. Really haven’t had much effect. Are we actually going to get to a place where the federal government says: We need savings, yeah. This 22% extra that you’re getting, no, we can’t do that anymore. So I think it’s an open question about, how big is it going to get? Is it going to be two-thirds of the Medicare program, three-quarters of the Medicare program? And if so, then what is the future, turning the question on its head, of traditional Medicare if it’s that small? And that’s one of the great questions about Medicare in the next decade or two. 

Rovner: Thank you so much. 

Oberlander: Oh, thanks for having me. It was great to see you. 

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

Appleby: Yeah. I found this story on NPR quite interesting. It’s maybe something that a lot of us have thought about, but it just added a lot of numbers to the question of how many chemicals are in our beauty products — basically, the makeup we use, the lotions, our hairspray, the stuff that happens at the salon, that kind of thing. And it’s called “.” And it was written by Rachel Treisman. Basically it says that the average American adult uses about 12 personal care products a day, resulting in exposure to about 168 chemicals, which can include things like formaldehyde, mercury, asbestos, etc., etc. OK, so that’s interesting. But it also talks about how the European Union has banned more than 2,000 chemicals, basically, but the FDA puts limits on only about a dozen. 

So this has caused four Democratic lawmakers to introduce a package of legislation, actually they’re calling the Safer Beauty Bill Package, and it’s four bills. And basically one of them would ban two entire classes of chemicals, phthalates and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals. And it also calls for some other things as well, which they say hasn’t been done and needs to be looked at. So I just thought it was an interesting thing that pulled together a lot of data from various sources and talked about this package of bills and whether or not it might make a difference in terms of looking at some of these chemicals in the products we use all the time and requiring a little bit more transparency about that. It’s a step. I don’t know if it’s going to resolve everybody’s concerns about this, but I just thought it was an interesting little piece looking at that topic. 

Rovner: It’s worth remembering that the FDA’s governing statute is actually called the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

Appleby: That’s right. 

Rovner: The cosmetics often gets very short shrift in that whole thing. Alice, why don’t you go next? 

Ollstein: Yeah. So I have a piece from The Associated Press. It’s called “.” And so this really gets at something we’ve been talking about on the podcast, where the administration is really fixated on a few kind of superficial food health things like colored dyes in food and frying something in beef tallow instead of vegetable oil. But something fried in beef tallow is still unhealthy. Froot Loops without the color dye are still unhealthy. And these meals that he is promoting as a service for Medicare and Medicaid enrollees are unhealthy. So this article is about how they do have chemical additives, they are high in sodium and sugar and saturated fats, and so it’s not in sort of keeping with the overall MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] message. But in a way it kind of is. 

Rovner: From the oops file. Jessie. 

Hellmann: My extra credit is from my colleague Ariel Cohen at Roll Call. It’s called “.” She did a story about something that kind of, I think, flew under the radar this week. The Trump administration is starting to make good on its promise to look at SSRIs [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors], and the panel was very much full of skeptics of SSRIs who sought to undermine the confidence in using them while pregnant. And Marty Makary himself, FDA commissioner, claimed it could cause birth defects and other fetal harm. That was a statement that was echoed by many of the panelists. There was only one panelist who talked about the benefits of SSRIs in pregnant people who need them, the risks of postpartum depression to both the mom and the baby. And so I think this is definitely something to keep an eye on, is it looks like they’re going to keep looking more at this and raising questions about SSRIs without having much of a nuanced conversation about it. 

Rovner: Yeah. I did see something from ACOG, from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, this week pushing back very hard on the anti-SSRI-during-pregnancy push. So we’ll see how that one goes, too. My extra credit this week is from my Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleague Katheryn Houghton, and it’s called “Republicans Call Medicaid Rife With Fraudsters. This Man Sees No Choice but To Break the Rules.” And it’s about something that didn’t really come up during the whole Medicaid debate, the fact that if Republicans really want people to go to work, well, then maybe they shouldn’t take away their health insurance if they get a small raise or a few extra hours. The subject of this story, only identified as James, technically makes about $50 a week too much to stay on Medicaid, but he otherwise can’t afford his six prescription medications and he can’t afford the care that he needs through even a subsidized Affordable Care Act plan, or his employer’s plan, either. 

The point of the ACA was to make coverage seamless so that as you earn more, you can still afford coverage even if you’re not on Medicaid anymore. But obviously that isn’t happening for everyone. Quoting from the story: “‘I don’t want to be a fraud. I don’t want to die,’ James said. ‘Those shouldn’t be the only two options.’” Yet for a lot of people they are. It’s not great, and it’s not something that’s currently being addressed by policymakers. 

OK. That is this week’s show. Thanks as always to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. If you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me still on X, , or on Bluesky, . Where are you folks hanging on social media these days? Jessie? 

Hellmann: I’m @jessiehellmann on and . 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: on X and on Bluesky. 

Rovner: Julie. 

Appleby: on X. 

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

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, July 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 videoconference by Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Sandhya Raman: Hello, everyone. 

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: No interview this week, but more than enough news. So we will get right to it. 

We’re going to start on Capitol Hill, where in the very wee hours of Thursday morning, the Senate approved the $9 billion package of rescissions of money already appropriated. It was largely for foreign aid and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which oversees NPR and PBS. Now, this bill represents pennies compared to the entire federal budget and even to the total of dollars that are appropriated every year, but it’s still a big deal because it’s basically Congress ceding more of its spending power back to the president. And even this small package was controversial. Before even bringing it to the floor, senators took out the rescission of funds for PEPFAR [the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief], the bipartisanly popular international AIDS/HIV program begun under President George W. Bush. So now it has to go back to the House, and the clock on this whole process runs out on Friday. Sandhya, what’s likely to happen next? 

Raman: I think that the House has been more amenable. They got this through quicker, but if you look— 

Rovner: By one vote. 

Raman: Yeah. But I think if you look at what else has been happening in the House this week that isn’t in the health sphere, they’ve been having issues getting other things done, because of some pushback from the Freedom Caucus, who’s been kind of stalling the votes and having them to go back. And other things that should have been smoother are taking a lot longer and having a lot more issues. So it’s more difficult to say without seeing how all of that plays out, if those folks are going to make a stink again about something here because some of this money was taken out. It’s a work in progress this week in the House. 

Rovner: Yeah, that’s a very kind way to put it. The House has basically been stalled for the last 24 hours over, as you say, many things, completely unrelated, but there is actually a clock ticking on this. They had 45 days from when the administration sent up this rescission request, and we’re now on Day 43 because Congress is the world’s largest group of high school students that never do anything until the last minute. So Democrats warned that this bill represents yet another dangerous precedent. They reached a bipartisan agreement on this year of spending bills in the spring, and this basically rolls at least some of that back using a straight party-line vote. What does this bode for the rest of Congress’ appropriations work for the fiscal year that starts in just a couple of months? 

Raman: I think that the sense has been that once this goes through, I think a lot of people have just been assuming that it’ll take time but that things will get passed on rescissions. It really puts a damper on the bipartisan appropriations process, and it’s going to make it a lot harder to get people to come to the table. So earlier this week we had the chair of the Appropriations Committee and the chair of the Labor, HHS [Health and Human Services], Education subcommittee in the House say that the health appropriations they were going to do next week for the House are going to get pushed back until September because they’re not ready. And I think that health is also one of the hardest ones to get through. There’s a lot more controversial stuff. It’s setting us up to go, kind of like usual at this point, for another CR [continuing resolution], because it’s going to be a really short timeline before the end of the fiscal year. But if you look at some— 

Rovner: Every year they say they’re going to do the spending bills separately, and every year they don’t. 

Raman: Yeah, and I think if you look at how they’ve been approaching some of the things that have been generally a little bit less controversial and how much pushback and how much more difficulties they’ve been having with that, even this week, I think that it’s going to be much more difficult to get that done. And the rescissions, pulling back on Congress’ power of the purse, is not going to make that any easier. 

Rovner: I think what people don’t appreciate, and I don’t think I appreciated it either until this came up, is that the rescissions process is part of the budget act, which is one of these things that Congress can do on an expedited basis in the Senate with just a straight majority. But the regular appropriations bills, unlike the budget reconciliation bill that we just did, need 60 votes. They can be filibustered. So the only way to get appropriations done is on a bipartisan basis, and yet they’re using this rather partisan process to take back some of the deal that they made. The Democrats keep saying it, and everybody’s like, Oh, process, process. But that actually could be a gigantic roadblock, to stopping everything in its tracks, right? 

Raman: I really think so. And if you look at who are the two Republicans in the Senate that voted against the rescissions, one of them is the Senate Appropriations chair, Susan Collins. And throughout this, one of her main concerns was when we still had the PEPFAR in there. But it just takes back her power as the highest-ranking appropriator in the Senate to do it through this process, especially when she wasn’t in favor of the rescissions package. 

So it’s going to make things, I think, a lot more complicated, and one of her concerns throughout has just been that there wasn’t enough information. She was pulling out examples of rescissions in the past and how it was kind of a different process. They were really briefed on why this was necessary. And it was just different now. So I think what happens with appropriations and how long it’ll take this year is going to be interesting to watch. 

Rovner: And it’s worth remembering that it’s when the appropriations don’t happen that the government shuts down. So, but that doesn’t happen until October. Well, separately we learned that — oh, go ahead, Joanne. 

Kenen: There’s also sort of a whole new wrinkle, is that rescissions is, if you’re a Republican and you don’t like something and you end up, to avoid a government shutdown or whatever reason, you end up having to vote for a bill, you just have the president put out a statement saying, If this goes through, I’m going to cut it afterwards. And then the Republican who doesn’t like it can give a floor speech saying, I’m voting for it because I like this in it and I know that the president’s going to take care of that. It really — appropriations is always messy, but there’s this whole unknown. The constitutional balance of who does what in the American government is shifting. And at the end of the day, the only thing we do know after both the first term and what’s happened so far even more so in the second term, is what [President Donald] Trump wants, Trump tends to get. 

So, Labor-H [the appropriations for Labor, HHS, Education and related agencies], like Sandhya just pointed out, the health bill is one of the hardest because there’s so much culture-war stuff in it. But, although, the Supreme Court has put some of that off the table. But I just don’t know how things play out in the current dynamic, which is unprecedented. 

Rovner: And of course, Labor-HHS also has the Department of Education in it. 

Kenen: The former Department of Education. 

Rovner: To say, which is in the process of being dismantled. So that’s going to make that even more controversial this year. Moving back to the present, separately we learned this week that the administration plans to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to destroy stocks of food and contraceptives and other medical devices rather than distribute them through some of the international aid programs that they’re canceling. Now, in the case of an estimated 500 tons of high-energy biscuits bought by USAID [the U.S. Agency for International Development] at the end of the Biden administration, you can almost understand it because they’re literally about to expire next week. According to The Atlantic, which first reported , this is only a small part of 60,000 metric tons of food already purchased from U.S. farmers and sitting in warehouses around the world, where the personnel who’d be in charge of distributing them would’ve been fired or transferred or called back to the U.S. 

At the same time, there are apparently also plans to destroy an estimated $12 million worth of HIV prevention supplies and contraceptives originally purchased as part of foreign aid programs rather than turn them over or even sell them to other countries or nonprofits. This feels like maybe the not most efficient use of taxpayer dollars? 

Luthra: I think this is something we’ve talked about before, but it really bears repeating. As a media ecosphere, we’ve sort of moved on from the really rapid dismantling of USAID. And it was not only without precedent. It was incredibly wasteful with the sudden way it was done, all of these things that were already purchased no longer able to be used, leases literally broken. And people had to pay more to break leases for offices set up in other countries, all these sorts of things that really could have already been used because they had been paid for. And instead, the money is simply lost. 

And I think the important thing for us to remember here is not only the immense waste financially to taxpayers but the real trust that has been lost, because these were promises made, things purchased, programs initiated, and when other countries see us pulling back in such a, again, I keep saying wasteful, but truly wasteful manner, it’s just really hard to ever imagine that the U.S. will be a reliable partner moving forward. 

Rovner: Yeah, absolutely. I understand the food thing to some extent because the food’s going to expire, but the medical supplies that could be distributed by somebody else? I’m still sort of searching for why that would make any sense in any universe, but yeah I guess this is the continuation of, We’re going to get rid of this aid and pretend that it never happened. 

Well, meanwhile, it’s only been a couple of weeks, but we’re starting to see the politics of that big Trump tax and spending measure play out. One big question is: Why didn’t Republicans listen to the usually very powerful hospital industry that usually gets its way but did not this time? And relatedly, will those Republicans who voted with Trump but against those powerful hospital interests do an about-face between now and when these Medicaid cuts are supposed to take effect? We’ve already seen Sen. Josh Hawley, the Republican from Missouri who loudly proclaimed his opposition to those Medicaid cuts before he voted for them anyway, introduce legislation to rescind them. So is this the new normal? I think, Joanne, you were sort of alluding to this, that you can now sort of vote for something and then immediately say: Didn’t mean to vote for that. Let’s undo it. 

Kenen: You could even do it before you vote for it, if they play it right. If Congress passes these things, we’re not going to pay attention. We’re already in that moment. But also, when I was working on a Medicaid piece, the magazine piece like four or five months ago, one of the most cynical people I know in Washington told me, he said, Oh, they’ll pass these huge cuts because they need the budget score to get the taxes through, and then they’ll start repealing it. And it seemed so cynical at the time, only he might’ve been right. 

So I don’t think they’re going to cut all of it. Republicans ideologically want a smaller Medicaid program. They want less spending. They want work requirements. You’re not going to see the whole thing go away. Could you see some retroactive tinkering or postponement or something? Yeah, you could. It’s too soon to know. Hospitals are the biggest employer in many, many congressional districts. This is a power— 

Rovner: Most of them. 

Kenen: Most, yeah. I don’t think it’s quite all, but like a lot. It’s the biggest single employer, and Medicaid is a big part of their income. And they still by law have to stabilize people who come in sick, and there’s emergency care and all sorts of other things, right? They do charity care. They do uninsured people. They do all sorts. They still treat people under certain circumstances even when they can’t pay. But right now, the threat of a primary opponent is more powerful than the threat of your local hospital being mad at you and harming health care access in your community. So much in the Republican world revolves around not getting the president mad enough that he threatens to get you beaten in a primary. We’ve seen that time and again already. 

Rovner: Right. And I will also say there’s precedent for this, for passing something and then unpassing it. Joanne and I covered in 19— 

Kenen: But it wasn’t the plan. 

Rovner: Yeah, I know. But remember, back in 1997 when they passed the Balanced Budget Act, every year for the next — was it three or four years? They did what we came to call “give back” bills. 

Kenen: Or punting, right? 

Rovner: Yeah, where they basically undid, they unspooled, some of those cuts, mostly because they’d cut more deeply than they’d intended to. And then we know with the Affordable Care Act, I’ve said this several times, they passed all of these financing mechanisms for it and then one by one repealed them. 

Kenen: And the individual mandate — I mean everything- 

Rovner: And the individual mandate, right. 

Kenen: They kept the dessert and they gave away everything. They undid everything that paid for the dessert, basically. 

Rovner: Right. Right. 

Kenen: And so it was the Cadillac — because people don’t remember anymore — the Cadillac tax, the insurance tax, the device tax. They all were like, One at a time! And they were repealed because lobbying works. 

Rovner: The tanning tax just went. 

Kenen: Right, right. So that dynamic existed, passing something unpopular and then redoing it, but the dynamic now really just comes — basically this is Donald Trump’s town. He has had a remarkable success in not only getting Congress to do what he wants but getting Congress to surrender some of its own powers, which have been around since Congress began. This is the way our government was set up. So there’s a very, very different dynamic, and it’s still unpredictable. None of us thought that the biggest crisis would be the [Jeffrey] Epstein case, right? Which is not a health story, and we don’t have to spend any time on it except to acknowledge— 

Rovner: Please. 

Kenen: —that there’s stuff going on in the background that people who had been extremely loyal to the president are now mad. And we don’t know how long. He’s very good at neutralizing things, too. He’s blaming it on the Democrats. 

But there is a different dynamic. Congress has less power because Congress gave up some of its power. Are they going to want to reassert themselves? There is no sign of it right now, but who knows what happens. I thought they would cut Medicaid. I thought they would do work requirements. I thought they would let the enhanced ACA subsidies expire. But I did not think the cuts would go this deep and this extensive — really transformationally pretty historic cuts. 

Rovner: Shefali, you wanted to say something? 

Kenen: Not pretty historic cuts, very historic cuts. Unprecedented. 

Luthra: I was thinking Joanne made such a good point about how, for all of the talk now about trying to mitigate that backlash, a lot of this is in line ideologically with what Republicans want. They do want a smaller Medicaid program. And I think a really interesting and still open question is whether they are willing and able to actually create policy that does reverse some of these cuts or not, and even if they do, if it’s sufficient to change voters’ perception, because we know that these cuts are very unpopular. Democrats are talking about them a lot. Hospitals are talking about them a lot. And just the failed attempt to repeal the ACA led to the 2018 midterms. And I think there is a real chance that this is the dominant topic when we head into next year’s elections. And it’s hard to say if Josh Hawley putting out a bill can undo that damage, so—. 

Rovner: Well, I’m so glad you mentioned that, because The Washington Post has a about a clinic closing in rural Nebraska, with its owners publicly blaming the impending Medicaid cuts. Yet its Trump-supporting patients are just not buying it. Now in 2010, Republicans managed to hang the Affordable Care Act around Democrats’ necks well before the vast majority of the changes took place. Are Democrats going to be able to do that now? There’s a lot of people saying, Oh, well, they’re not going to be able to blame this on the Republicans, because most of it won’t have happened yet. This is really going to be a who-manages-to-push-their-narrative, right? 

Kenen: This really striking thing about that story is that the people who were losing access, they’re not losing their Medicaid yet, but they’re losing access to the only clinic within several — they have to drive hours now to get medical care. And when they were told this was because the Republican Congress and President Trump, they said, Oh no, it can’t be. First of all, a lot of people just don’t pay attention to the news. We know that. And then if you’re paying attention to news that never says anything negative about the president, that blames everything on Joe Biden no matter — if it rains yesterday, it was his fault, right? 

So the sort of gap between — there are certain things that are matters of opinion and interpretation, and there are certain things that are matters of fact, but those facts are not getting through. And we do not know whether the Democrats will be able to get them through, because the resistance, it’s almost magical, right? My clinic closed because of a Republican Medicaid bill? Oh no, it’s hospital greed. They just don’t want to treat us anymore. They just, it doesn’t compute, because it doesn’t fit into what they have been reading and hearing, to the extent that they read and hear. 

Rovner: Sandhya, you want to add something? 

Raman: The one thing that as I’ve been asking around on Capitol Hill about the Hawley bill — and there was one from Sen. Rand Paul, and a House counterpart, from [Rep.] Greg Steube, does sort of the opposite — it wants to move up the timeline for one of the provisions. So one important thing to consider is neither of these bills have had a lot of buy-in from other members of Congress. They’ve been introduced, but the people that I’ve talked to have said, I’m not sure. 

And I think something interesting that Sen. Thom Tillis had said was: If Republicans had a problem with what some of the impacts would be, then why were they denying that there would be an effect on rural health or some of those things to begin with? And I think a lot of it will take some time to judge to see if people will move the needle, but if we’re going to change any of these deadlines through not reconciliation, you need 60 votes in the Senate and you’ll need Democrats on board as well as Republicans. And I think one interesting thing to watch there is that I think some of the Democrats are also looking at this in a political way. If there’s a Republican that has a bill that is trying to tamp down some of the effects of their signature reconciliation law, do they want to help them and sign on to that bill or kind of illustrate the effects of the bill before the midterms or whatever? 

Rovner: A lot more politics to come. 

Raman: Yeah. Yeah. 

Rovner: Meanwhile, over at HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services], there is also plenty of news. Many of the workers who’ve been basically in limbo since April when a judge temporarily halted the Trump administration’s efforts to downsize have now been formally let go after the Supreme Court last week lifted that injunction. What are we hearing about how things are going over at HHS? We’ve talked sort of every week about this sort of continuing chaos. I assume that the hammer falling is not helping. It’s not adding to things settling down. 

Kenen: No. And then Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] just fired two top aides because — no one knows exactly the full story but it’s — and I certainly do not know the full story. But what I have read is that the personality conflict with his top aide — and that happens in offices, and he’s not the first person in the history of HHS to have people who don’t get along with one another. But it’s just more unsettled stuff in an agency already in flux, because now in addition to all these people being let go in all sorts of programs and programs being rolled back, you also have some leadership chaos at the top. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, HHS Secretary Kennedy took office with vows to eliminate the financial influence of Big Pharma, Big Food, and other industries with potential conflicts of interests. But shoutout here to my Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleague Stephanie Armour, who has a story this week about how the new vested interests at HHS are the wellness industry. Kennedy and four top advisers, three of whom have been hired into the department, wrote Stephanie, quote, “earned at least $3.2 million in fees and salaries from their work opposing Big Pharma and promoting wellness in 2022 and 2023, according to a Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News review of financial disclosure forms filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics and the Department of Health and Human Services; published media reports; and tax forms filed with the IRS. That total doesn’t include revenue from speaking fees, the sale of wellness products, or other income sources for which data is not publicly available.” Have we basically just traded one form of regulatory capture for another form of regulatory capture? 

Kenen: And one isn’t covered by insurance. Some of it is, but there’s a lot of stuff in the, quote, “wellness” industry that providers and so forth, certain services are covered if there’s licensed people and an evidence base for them, but a lot of it isn’t. And these providers charge a lot of money out-of-pocket, too. 

Rovner: And they make a lot of money. This is a totally — unlike Big Pharma, Big Food, and Big Medicine, which is regulated, Big Wellness is largely not regulated. 

Kenen: I think Stephanie — that was a really good piece — and I think Stephanie said it was, what, $6.3 trillion industry? Was that— 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s huge. 

Kenen: Am I remembering that number right? It’s largely unregulated. Many of the products have never gone through any review for safety or efficacy. And insurance doesn’t cover a lot of it. It doesn’t mean it’s all bad. There are certain things that are helpful, but as an industry overall, it leaves something for us to worry about. 

Rovner: Well, in HHS-adjacent breaking news that could turn out to be nothing or something really big, an appeals court in Richmond on Tuesday ruled 2-1 that West Virginia may in fact limit access to the abortion pill, even though it’s approved by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration]. It’s the first time a federal appeals court has basically said that states can effectively override the FDA’s nationwide drug approval authority. And it’s the question that the Supreme Court has already ducked once, in that case out of Texas last year where the justices ruled that the doctors who were suing didn’t have standing, so they didn’t have to get to that question. But, Shefali, this has implications well beyond abortion, right? 

Luthra: Oh, absolutely. We are seeing efforts across the country to restrict access to certain medications that are FDA-approved. Abortion pills are the obvious one, but, of course, we can think about gender-affirming care. We can think about access to all sorts of other therapeutics and even vaccines that are now sort of coming under political fire. And if FDA approval means less than state restrictions, as we are seeing in this case, as we very possibly could see as these kinds of arguments and challenges make their way to the Supreme Court. The case you alluded to earlier with the doctors who didn’t have standing is still alive, just with different plaintiffs now. And so these questions will probably come back. There are just such vast ramifications for any kind of medication that could be politicized, and it’s something that industry at large has been very worried about since this abortion pill became such a big question. And it is something that this decision is not going to alleviate. 

Rovner: Yes. Speaking of Big Pharma, they’re completely freaked out by this possibility because it does have implications for every FDA-approved drug. 

Luthra: And they invest so much money in trying to get products that have FDA approval. There’s a real promise that with this global gold standard, you will be able to keep a drug on the market and really make a lot of money on it. There’s also obviously concerns for birth control, which we aren’t seeing legally restricted in the same way as abortion yet, but it is something that is so deeply subject to politics and culture-war issues that that’s something that we could see coming down the line if trends continue the way they are. 

Rovner: Well, we will watch that space. Moving on. Wednesday was the third anniversary of the federal 988 federal crisis line, which has so far served an estimated 16 million people with mental health crises via call, text, or chat. An estimated 10% of those calls were routed through a special service for LGBTQ+ youth, which is being cut off today by the Trump administration, which accused the program, run by the Trevor Project, as, quote, “radical gender ideology.” Now, LGBTQ+ youth are among those at the highest risk for suicide, which is exactly what the 988 program was created to prevent. Yet there’s been very little coverage of this. I had to actually go searching to find out exactly what happened here. Is this just kind of another day in the Trump administration? 

Raman: I think a lot of it stems back to some of those initial executive orders related to gender ideology and DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] and things like that. The Trump administration’s kind of argument is that it shouldn’t be siloed. It should be all general. There shouldn’t be sort of special treatment, even though we do have specialized services for veterans who call in to these services and things. But I— 

Rovner: Although that was only saved when members of Congress complained. 

Raman: Yeah. But I do think that when we have so much happening in this space focused on LGBTQ issues, it’s easier for things to get missed. I think the one thing that I did notice was that California announced yesterday that they were going to step up to do a partnership with the Trevor Project to at least — the LGBTQ youth calling from California to any of those local 988 centers would be reaching people that have been trained a little bit more in cultural competency and dealing with LGBTQ youth. But that’s not going to be all the states and it’s going to take time. Yeah. 

Rovner: Yeah, we’re going to continue to see this cobbled together state by state. It feels like increasingly what services are available to you are going to be very much dependent on where you live. That’s always been true, but it feels like it’s getting more and more and more true. Shefali, I see you nodding. 

Luthra: Something you alluded to that I think bears making explicit is public health interventions are typically targeted toward people who are in greater danger or are at greater risk. That’s not discrimination — that’s public health efficiency. And suggesting that we shouldn’t have resources targeted toward people at higher risk of suicide is counter to what public health experts have been arguing for a very long time. And that’s just something that I think really bears noting and keeping in mind as we see what the impact of this is moving forward. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think that’s a very good point. Thank you. 

Well, speaking of popular things that are going away, a federal judge appointed by President Trump last week struck down the last-minute Biden administration rule from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that tried to bar medical debt from appearing on credit reports. This had been hailed as a major step for the 100 million Americans with medical debt, which is not exactly the same as buying a car or a TV that you really can’t afford. People don’t go into medical debt saying, Oh, I think I’m going to go run up a big medical bill that I can’t pay. But this strikes me as yet another way this administration is basically inflicting punishment on its own voters. Yes? 

Kenen: Yes, except we just don’t know. Some red states are so red that you don’t need every voter. We don’t know who actually votes, and we don’t know whether people make these connections, right? What we were talking about before with Medicaid — do they understand that this is something that President Trump not just urged but basically ordered Congress to do? So do people pay attention? How many people even know if their medical debt is or is not on their credit report? They know they have the medical debt, but I’m not sure everybody understands all the implication, particularly if you’re used to being in debt. You may be somebody who’s lost a job or couldn’t pay your mortgage or couldn’t pay your rent. Some of the people who have medical debt have so many other financial — not all — that it’s just part of a debt soup and it’s just one more ingredient. 

So how it plays out and how it’s perceived? It’s part of this unpredictable mix. Trump is openly talking about gerrymandering more, and so it won’t matter what voters do, because they’ll have more Republican seats. That’s just something he’s floating. We don’t know whether it’ll actually happen, but he floated it in public, so— 

Rovner: So much of this is flooding the zone, that people — there’s so much happening that people have no idea who’s responsible for what. There’s always the pollster question: Is your life better or worse than it was last year? Or four years ago, whatever. And I think that when you do so much so fast, it’s pretty hard to affix blame to anybody. 

Raman: And most people aren’t single-issue voters. They’re not going to the polls saying, My medical debt is back on my credit report. There’s so many other things, even if with the last election, health care was not the number one issue for most voters. So it’s difficult to say if it will be the top issue for the next election or the next one after that. 

And I guess just piggybacking that a lot of the times when there’s these big changes, they don’t take effect for a while. So it’s easier to rationalize, Oh, it may have been this person or that person or the senator then, or who was president at a different time, just because of how long it takes to see the effects in your daily life. 

Rovner: Politics is messy. All right, well, this is as much time for the news as we have this week? 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’ll put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Shefali, why don’t you go first this week? 

Luthra: Sure. My piece is from The New York Times, by Apoorva Mandavilli. The headline is “” And she takes a look at when the head of the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] told the Senate that PEPFAR had spent almost $10 million advising Russian doctors on abortions and gender analysis. And she goes through and says this isn’t true. PEPFAR hasn’t been in Russia. They cannot fund abortions. And she talks with people who were there and can say this simply isn’t true and this is very easy to disprove. And I like this piece because it’s just a reminder that a lot of things are being said about government spending that are not true. And it is a public service to remind readers that they are very easily disproven. 

Rovner: Yeah, and to go ahead and do that. Sandhya. 

Raman: My extra credit is “,” and it’s from Cecilia Nowell for The Nation, my co-fellow through AHCJ [the Association of Health Care Journalists] this year. Cecilia went to Kiruna, which is an Arctic village in Sweden, to look at how they’re using mifepristone for abortions up to 22 weeks in pregnancy, compared to up to 10 weeks in the U.S. And it’s a really interesting look at how they’re navigating rural access to abortion in very remote areas. Almost all abortions in Sweden are done through medication abortion, and while the majority here are in the 60% versus high 90s. So just interesting how they’re taking their approach there as rural access is limited here. 

Rovner: Really interesting story. Joanne. 

Kenen: This is a piece in The New Yorker by Dhruv Khullar, and it’s “” And what I found interesting, we’ve been hearing about: Can AI do this? It’s sort of been in the air since AI came around. But what was so interesting about this article is there’s a nonprofit that is actually doing it, and they have this sort of whole sort of hierarchy of why a drug may be promising and why a disease may be a good target. And then the AI look at genetics and diseases, and they have four or five factors they look at. And then there’s this just sort of hierarchy of which are the ones we can make accessible. 

So A, it’s actually happening. B, it has promise. It’s not a panacea, but there’s promise. And C, it’s being done by a nonprofit. It’s not a cocktail for an individual patient. It’s trying to figure out: What are the smartest drugs to be looking at and what can they treat? And they give examples of people who have gone into remission from rare diseases. And also it says there are 18,000 diseases and only 9,000 have treatment. So this is huge, right? Rare diseases may only affect a few people, but there are lots of rare diseases. So cumulatively some of the people they strike are young. So for someone who doesn’t always read about AI, I found this one interesting. 

Rovner: Also, we read somebody’s story about how AI is terrible for this, that, and the other thing. It is very promising for an awful lot of things. 

Kenen: No. Right. 

Rovner: There’s a reason that everybody’s looking at it. 

All right, my extra credit this week is also from The New York Times. It’s called “,” by David Enrich, who’s The Times’ deputy investigations editor and, notably, author of a book on attacks on press freedoms. That’s because the story chronicles how UnitedHealth, the mega health company we have talked about a lot on this show, is taking a cue from President Trump and increasingly taking its critics to court, in part by claiming that critical reporting about the company risks inciting further violence like the Midtown Manhattan murder of United executive Brian Thompson last year. 

I hasten to add, this isn’t a matter of publications making stuff up. United, as we have pointed out, is a subject of myriad civil and criminal investigations into potential Medicare fraud as well as antitrust violations. This is still another chapter unfolding in the big United story. 

OK, that is this week’s show. Thanks as always to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. If you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us to review. That helps other people find us, too. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on X, , or on Bluesky, . Where are you folks hanging these days? Shefali? 

Raman: I’m at Bluesky, . 

Rovner: Sandhya. 

Raman: I’m and , @SandhyaWrites. 

Rovner: Joanne? 

Kenen: I’m mostly at Bluesky, , and I’ve been posting things more on , and there are more health people hanging out there. 

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