Mental Health Archives - Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News /topics/mental-health/ Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News produces in-depth journalism on health issues and is a core operating program of KFF. Fri, 01 May 2026 15:44:46 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.5 /wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=32 Mental Health Archives - Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News /topics/mental-health/ 32 32 161476233 The Peculiar Politics of Hospitals /podcast/what-the-health-444-hospital-pricing-congress-988-suicide-april-30-2026/ Thu, 30 Apr 2026 19:15:00 +0000 /?p=2232481&post_type=podcast&preview_id=2232481 The Host
Julie Rovner photo
Julie Rovner Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

Republicans and Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee had strong words for hospital CEOs about their prices at a hearing this week. But it remains unclear whether they will follow up their words with actions to force prices down.

Meanwhile, in a rare bit of positive health policy news, a study of the first two years of the new 988 suicide prevention hotline shows it reduced suicides among young people, and more so in states that fielded more calls.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen photo
Joanne Kenen Johns Hopkins University and Politico
Shefali Luthra photo
Shefali Luthra The 19th
Rachel Roubein photo
Rachel Roubein The Washington Post

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • Hospitals have long been the most sacrosanct of healthcare stakeholders to politicians, partly because every member of Congress has at least one in their district. Hospitals are often major employers and have a powerful lobbying presence. So it was notable that members of Congress from both parties were willing to criticize hospital CEOs strongly at a hearing to examine hospital prices.
  • The Supreme Court heard arguments this week about labeling for the controversial pesticide glyphosate, which may or may not cause or contribute to cancers. The issue divides the Make America Healthy Again movement, which sees the Trump administration’s support of the Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that the product is not carcinogenic as a political betrayal.
  • A study demonstrating the effectiveness of the national 988 suicide prevention hotline in reducing youth suicide is a bit of good news stemming from a rare bipartisan effort to address a serious problem.
  • Another pair of studies this week suggest that the Trump administration’s delay of the recommended birth dose of the vaccine to prevent hepatitis B could increase the number of cases of the disease and cost millions more in health spending to treat its complications.

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

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “,” by Christina Jewett and Benjamin Mueller.

Joanne Kenen: ProPublica’s “,” by Anna Clark.

Rachel Roubein: Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ “Big Companies Position Themselves for Payday From $50B Federal Rural Health Fund,” by Sarah Jane Tribble.

Shefali Luthra: The Atlantic and Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ “,” by Elisabeth Rosenthal.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

  • KFF’s “,” by Audrey Kearney, Mardet Mulugeta, Alex Montero, Isabelle Valdes, Lunna Lopes, and Ashley Kirzinger.
  • KFF’s “,” by Drew Altman.
  • JAMA’s “,” by Vishal R. Patel; Michael Liu; and Anupam B. Jena.
  • JAMA Pediatrics’ “,” by Eric W. Hall; Prabhu Gounder, Heather Bradley, and Noele P. Nelson.
  • JAMA Pediatrics’ “,” by Margaret L. Lind, Matt D.T. Hitchings, Roshni P. Singh, Benjamin P. Linas, Derek A.T. Cummings, and Rachel L. Epstein.
click to open the transcript Transcript: The Peculiar Politics of Hospitals

[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. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News. As always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, April 30. 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 Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello.  

Rovner: Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post. 

Rachel Roubein: Happy to be here.  

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 lots of news. So let’s dive right in. I want to start with politics this week. The House Ways and Means Committee held a kind of remarkable hearing with some large hospital chain CEOs, at which members from both parties took great public umbrage at hospital pricing practices. The headline on the Ways and Means GOP chair Jason Smith’s opening statement was, quote, “,” and that was among the milder charges that he and other committee members lobbed at the witnesses. Yet Ways and Means members have been talking about things like site-neutral payments for Medicare and reining in the 340B Drug Pricing Program for literally years now without actually doing anything about them. Was this all just for show? Or might we actually see some action on hospital pricing this year?  

Kenen: They did take a bite at this, about the site-neutral payments, in a limited â€” on certain things. I looked it up last night because I figured Julie would know it by heart but I couldn’t remember. It was 2015. So they did a little bit of it, and they â€” it was bipartisan. And they did not solve the problem. They sort of nibbled around the edges. Consolidation of hospitals and acquisition of physician practices, etc., have intensified in the last decade. So there is a bipartisan willingness to nibble. We don’t know if there’s a bipartisan or even either side really having the stick-to-itness to get something done. I wasn’t in that room. Some of you may have been on the Hill more than I get there. I don’t feel that action is imminent, but I do think that the conversation is returning to hospitals in a way we haven’t seen it for a while. And hospitals are a lot of money.  

Rovner: That was my point is that hospitals are where the money is in healthcare. Rachel, you wanted to add something.  

Roubein: Oh yeah, and we saw in Trump 1 [President Donald Trump’s first term] some efforts around site-neutral at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. But just sort of politically speaking, why the rhetoric is interesting, it used to historically be a little harder for lawmakers to take aim at their friendly neighborhood hospital. They’re major employers in their districts, particularly rural areas, and they also support lawmakers. 

Rovner: Yes, and I would say for those who don’t follow this as weedily as we do, site-neutral payment is when hospitals who own outpatient clinics charge more for the same service in the hospital than they do in the clinic. The art justification is, Well, we have to help support the rest of the hospital facility, so we have to charge more. And this has been a point of contention for some time. 

Kenen: But that playing field has changed. So it’s more, there are more of them now than there were when there were more independent medical practices and more independently owned, either small chains or non-chain hospitals. The whole hospital industry has changed. And if I can add just one other quick fact why, I think politically, the targets have been insurers and drug companies, right? And that’s what the conversation’s been about for quite â€” the dominant conversation. And I think it’s because insurance prices are really high, and they go up every year, and you see it in your paycheck week after week. And drugs, most of us do go to a pharmacy or have a mail order. So many of us are confronted with paying out-of-pocket for a drug, and people who don’t have great insurance might pay a lot out-of-pocket for a drug, or they’re on a drug that’s not in their formulary, etc. It can be confusing. Most of us in any given year are not in a hospital. And sometimes, when we are in a hospital, we’re grateful for it. It’s not that everybody gets perfect care and there are no bad outcomes. Of course, there are. But if the hospital I gave birth at saved my kid, I’m grateful for that. And it was a long time ago. Eighth grade wasn’t so great, but the rest of his life is right. So we have a different relationship in terms of how we interact and how often we interact with our hospitals. 

Rovner: So building on that one hint of why Republicans might be feeling freer to criticize hospitals â€” who have long been, as Rachel points out, the most protected of all the healthcare stakeholders in Washington â€” came from . Quoting KFF President and CEO Drew Altman’s , which I will link to, quote: “What jumped out from the poll is the value voters place on villainizing health care’s big interests now. It’s like serving up a big fat slow curveball for every candidate to hit.” Putting on my cynical hat, maybe the message that politicians are taking here is to talk a big game on healthcare but don’t do things that will actually impact negatively the people who fund your campaigns. In other words, it is all for show and they’re not planning on doing it. 

Luthra: That’s kind of the interesting question, right? I was thinking a lot this morning about the really great  in The [New York] Times that Margot Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff wrote, and one of the points that they make is there’s less political pressure when people aren’t seeing firsthand the consequences for reform. And so if there isn’t really vocal outcry from consumers directly at hospitals as an institution, where does that political pressure come from? I don’t know that we have an answer that suggests it would be strong enough to outweigh what an important interest hospitals are. 

Rovner: Yeah. I want it noted that, in addition to going after Big Insurance and Big Pharma, members of Congress are now going after Big Hospital, which, as Joanne points out, is pretty rare. We will see if anything comes of it. 

Well, one of the reasons that healthcare is such a hard subject to, you know, legislate on is that there are almost always unintended consequences. Lawmakers want to give people stuff, and they want to give healthcare providers stuff, but they don’t want to figure out how to pay for it or who should pay for it. Case in point â€” those very popular weight loss drugs known as GLP-1s. The Trump administration last year announced a deal that would make the drugs made by Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk â€” those are the two big makers of these popular drugs â€” would make those drugs available through a Medicare pilot program provided by insurers. But even with the drugmakers agreeing to dramatically slash the drugs’ prices, insurers have balked at the added cost, causing the pilot to be canceled. Now, Medicare plans to pay for the drugs itself, apparently, at least temporarily. But of course, that’s going to pile new costs on a program that itself is not financially stable, and run the risk of doing to Medicare what many employers are doing to their workers, cutting off coverage for these drugs after they’ve already started it. There’s no easy solution to giving people new, modern, even working technologies that are expensive, right? 

Kenen: As more and more research about the potential benefits of these drugs â€” and also they are still relatively new. We could be having a whole different conversation about long-term use in a few years. But right now, one finding after another shows that it’s not just weight loss and diabetes, that there may be a lot of other benefits which still have to be studied or understood better, and who would benefit, and all those questions for the scientists. But these could be, end up being as common as statins down the road, and very expensive. So then the question is: Who gets the savings? Is it going to be worth it if Medicare pays for the drugs and ends up with fewer hospitalizations for advanced diabetes complications and amputations and kidney failure and all the terrible things that can come from advanced, uncontrolled diabetes? Is an insurer â€” insurers don’t like to always pay long-term. They don’t like to spend something tomorrow where the benefits may be 10 years down the road, because that person might not be your customer anymore in 10 years. So you’re investing in their long-term health, but they’re gonna be paying their premiums to your competitor in 10 or 20 or 30 years. So I just see this is getting more and more and more expensive, or at least the demand, the more and more people. How are we defining â€” diabetes has a clinical definition, but obesity is a little fudgier, right? No pun intended. 

Rovner: Two points. One is that the one thing we know about prevention and people who are not children is that it doesn’t pay for itself. So if you keep these people from dying from their diabetes complications and other complications of obesity, they’re going to live longer and eventually are going to die of something else, and that’s going to be expensive. So probably not a savings from CBO’s [the Congressional Budget Office’s] point of view. But the other thing is that other countries aren’t having this issue, because they have price controls on drugs, and we don’t. And try as hard as President Trump seems to be doing to piggyback off of other countries’ price controls, at some point â€” and I guess this harkens back to the hospital conversation â€” at some point Congress, the president, could just bite the bullet and say: Hey, we’re not going to let you charge â€” we’re not going to buy your drugs if you’re going to charge this much. So charge us less. I don’t see that anytime soon, but it is a possibility, yes? 

Luthra: Certainly. And I think one thing we’re not thinking about as well is what happens â€” right? â€” when people have had access to these drugs and then suddenly they are no longer covered. And with GLP-1s in particular, it’s actually kind of complicated and fascinating, because we are seeing all of these compounding pharmacies, some â€” right? â€” more in compliance with regulations than others, developing knockoffs. And people, I’ve talked a lot of them, will just go to those places instead, buy those products at a price they can afford, but the safety, the quality, may or may not be guaranteed. And there’s just a very large conversation that we’re not having about all of these consequences and trade-offs that we can’t quantify, by nature of us kicking the can down the road on dealing with the pricing problem. 

Rovner: Yeah, there’s a lot of PhD theses that are going to come out of this. There are just so many tentacles of it to study. And Joanne’s right. We don’t know. 

Kenen: Right. Particularly, to combine PhDs. The sweet spot is going to be like an AI analysis of GLP spending, or some 20 years out or whatever. That’s going to be what all the PhD theses are. 

Rovner: Yes, well, going from insoluble problems, most of what we talk about is kind of by necessity, bad news or divisive news. So this week I wanted to highlight an actual good-news story in health policy. According to  in the Journal of the American Medical Association, youth suicides have dropped markedly in the two years following the implementation of the 988 suicide prevention hotline. And while it’s hard to attribute all of the improvement to the hotline’s existence, the researchers were able to tease out that suicides decreased most in states with higher volumes of answered 988 calls and that suicides didn’t change much in peer countries that didn’t implement a hotline, like in England. And even more good news, while the Trump administration ended a specific part of the program that was aimed at helping LGBTQ+ callers last year, HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified during his marathon of hearings last week that the department would reinstate that option. Now all of this was the result of a bipartisan push in Congress over several years. What are the chances that seeing something good come from working together might prompt more cooperation that things, that lawmakers might agree on? This is my non-cynic hat. 

Kenen: Maybe in an alternative universe. 

Rovner: Go head, Rachel. 

Roubein: I thought this was interesting, because, as you said, this was something that was rolled out with bipartisan support in 2022. And it came off of the heels of the pandemic, which really exposed issues with youth mental health. I remember writing about the time this number was replacing a 10-digit hotline number, and advocates, etc., weren’t sure how much people would know about it, how received it would be from that standpoint, because you really had to get the message out that this was out there. So I thought that these numbers a few years later were pretty striking. 

Rovner: Yeah, I thought it was striking how fast that we were able to sort of see a difference. 

Kenen: But also there’s a history going back at least 10-ish, and probably longer, years on mental health. There’s bipartisanship. There have been a number of bills, both on opioids and substance abuse and mental health in general, not just for kids. There’s several over, in recent years, about mobile clinics and just spending more money. And this is great news, right? It’s good. And I think it helps in this area. Like by, can you work on some youth issues? Or could you work on some, continue working in a bipartisan basis on mental health issues? Because this country has a lot of mental health challenges. So I think a success makes that lane broader and better lit, but I don’t think it necessarily spills over to fixing all the 800,000 other problems stacked up in Congress. But it’s good. It’s obvious, I think, not just good news but I also think it’s good news for moving ahead and doing something else good. 

Rovner: Yeah, I would say it’s good news on its own, but it’s also potentially good news on the Let’s make other policy and fix other problems in the healthcare system. All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back. 

OK, we are back â€” and back to divisive stuff. The Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments in a case surrounding glyphosate. That’s the pesticide sold under the brand name Roundup, which Make America Healthy Again supporters and many scientists say causes, or at least contributes to, multiple types of cancers, and which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has determined is not carcinogenic. The case at issue concerns whether or not the maker of Roundup, Monsanto, should have included a warning label on its packaging. I’m less interested in the details of the case here, which involve whether states have the right to require labeling that the EPA does not, than the split it’s causing in the MAHA movement as the Trump administration backs the EPA’s finding that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, which MAHA supporters find to be a complete betrayal of their cause. Does this potentially have as much political oomph as the dispute over vaccines? Certainly not helping the MAHA movement be happy with the Trump administration. 

Roubein: This has definitely opened fissures between the Make America Healthy Again movement and the Trump administration. On top of that, I think one of the things that people in the MAHA movement were particularly upset about was Trump’s executive order earlier this year to boost domestic manufacturing of glyphosate. But at the same time, we have seen the Trump administration try and make nice with some MAHA leaders, inviting them to the White House. Some of them even spoke to Trump a little bit. So you’re kind of seeing that kind of divide here with the administration also trying to placate as well. 

Rovner: Yeah, this is sort of a fascinating political alliance that they’re on the one hand trying to protect and on the other hand trying to not allow, particularly when it comes to things like vaccines, not let it alienate people who are outside the movement, which as we have seen has turned out to be an extremely delicate dance. 

Luthra: And we’ve talked about this before, but I think one thing we still don’t really know is just how amorphous vs. cohesive MAHA as a movement is, and also its political potency. And there are Senate primaries that are good tests of this, [Sen.] Bill Cassidy an obvious one, given his vote on RFK and his stance on vaccines broadly. But we are still many months out from knowing if Trump alienating MAHA, if Republican institutions alienating parts of the MAHA movement, actually matters. Clearly a lot of Democrats think it might. That’s why we’re seeing so many of them court this constituency. But, yeah, I just think we really need to get a better sense as to how much of this is an influence that has been maybe a little bit hyped up, even by us in the press, and how much of it is actually substantial and influential. 

Rovner: Yeah, we know that the anti-abortion movement is powerful and turns out their voters, and when they make endorsements, when they get behind somebody or when they go against somebody, they have the money and the power and the clout and the vote to back that up. We don’t really know that yet about MAHA. I think that’s a really fair point. Joanne you wanted to add something? 

Kenen: No I think we don’t know as much. I think that the Trump people think they’re voters and that they think they helped them in 2024. But MAHA, I agree with what both of you just said. It’s amorphous. There are people whose primary issue is vaccines, and that’s how many of us think of MAHA, but it is also about healthy food. And some things that people could find common ground are the pesticides, the chemicals. Those are things that actually had been identified more with Democratic causes or Democratic voters in the past, those, some of the environmental issues. But I think, Julie, the question you asked is right. It’s a political force, but is it a political force that’s gonna gain power or just sort of dissipate? And there’s so many other things right now changing the politics of the country. I don’t think we could possibly know, even if you took a terrific poll today and found out they were mad. We have a pretty short news cycle. 

Rovner: Yeah, we do. We’ll see. All right. Well, meanwhile, elsewhere in the Trump administration, scientific retribution continues apace. The Justice Department this week announced the indictment of a former aide to Dr. Anthony Fauci for using his personal devices and email addresses to skirt public record laws and keep official communications private. Now this isn’t really news. The scientist, named David Morens, testified before a House hearing in 2024 and basically admitted what he did. So the question here is whether this criminal indictment is the beginning of a new effort to publicly punish those who the Trump administration accuse of unspecified wrongdoing regarding their handling of the covid pandemic. I would note that this week, obviously, we also got the indictment, again, of former FBI director Jim Comey. It’s not clear how much of this is the Justice Department trying to please President Trump and how much is sort of a new effort on this scientific front. 

Luthra: That’s such a good question. 

Rovner: Thank you. 

Luthra: No, I just, I think you’re right. It’s just not clear, because the acting attorney general hasn’t been in his role for very long. We know one of the reasons he has this job is because of dissatisfaction with how Pam Bondi approached the president’s goal of going after political opponents and targets. And so maybe, in a way, the why of it doesn’t matter if it creates a perception that this war on science is, in fact, renewed or accelerated or regaining steam in some way. If that’s how people feel and what the consequences look like, then there’s obviously a chilling effect that could be even greater than what we’ve already seen. 

Rovner: Yeah, and I would point out, it is a crime to use your personal devices to avoid public records laws. It is pretty common, but the actual indictment came so long after this. And is this the beginning of a series of, We’re gonna go punish the people who we think wronged us during the pandemic using whatever power we can find, or is this a one-off? And I guess we’ll have to see. 

Kenen: But I think he was sort of easy pickings because he had publicly admitted it. It’s up to the courts to decide if he’s guilty of an actual crime or just not following the rules. That’s not our decision. But it’s also, he was an easy target because he had admitted it, but he had also â€” it’s a sore spot. It’s the China lab thing. It’s not just some study or something to do with covid. It was very specifically, there are people who believe it was engineered and a lab leak that— 

Rovner: Oh, yeah, this clearly feeds into that. Right? 

Kenen: Into that conspiracy theory, which is unproven, and we may never know the full story of how covid emerged, but that’s a political button for a certain segment of Trump supporters. 

Rovner: Well, the administration’s ideologic purge continues as well. Late last week, the president fired all 22 members of the advisory board for the National Science Foundation. Now, the National Science Board is a bipartisan group that has advised the NSF since 1950. It is hardly full of political firebrands. Also this week, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health [Services] Administration announced it would no longer pay for test strips to see if drugs are adulterated with fentanyl or other potentially deadly substances, because it “facilitates,” air quotes, illegal drug use. Now there is a long and lively debate about whether such harm reduction policies protect lives or encourage illegal drug users to continue to use drugs, or both. But it does look kind of weird the week after the administration sought to loosen restrictions on both marijuana and hallucinogens. Yes? 

It doesn’t feel very consistent. Let’s put it that way. Though on the one hand, No more harm reduction, but we’re going to make it easier for you to use LSD and marijuana, because Joe Rogan thinks that it can help you with PTSD]. Which maybe it can â€” I’m not suggesting that was a wrong decision. I’m just suggesting that it does not look very consistent on a policy level. 

Kenen: That’s a good word, Julie. 

Luthra: No. You’re right, I think, to highlight the Joe Rogan maybe not manosphere but podcast-adjacent world where obviously you are trying to appeal to a very specific demographic by loosening regulations on marijuana or LSD in particular. And maybe it’s as simple as a lot of the party drug stimulants don’t fit into that demographic, at the risk of being incredibly reductive, like cocaine is associated with Brat summer. Brat summer is not â€” right? â€” the Joe Rogan-adjacent cultural force. I don’t know, maybe there’s something to there that this doesn’t fit into that same policy category because of who is seen as the people who end up sort of fitting into these different drug areas. 

Rovner: It does feel sort of overtly political, though, that going after particular groups of people who might or might not support you. Not that every, obviously, every administration is overtly political in some ways. They want to help the people who support them and not help the people who don’t support them. This just feels much more picking and choosing audiences. 

Kenen: I think you’re right, and it’s also a shift. I think that the country made a lot of progress in, again, that bipartisan mental health push we were talking about a few minutes ago. There was a greater understanding that addiction is a disease â€” there’s a criminal element, it’s an illegal drug, and there’s bad people involved in that market, obviously â€” but that this is not entirely a criminal justice issue. This is also a mental health and health issue, and that people need treatment. So we did sort of, not 100%, but we got much better at thinking about that. Chris Christie was one of the first appointees that Trump made in his first term on that initial opioid commission who really pressed that message. And this just seems to be a sort of demographic and class for subsectors of the population, who’s the Silicon Valley people who are into psychedelics vs. who’s using quote-unquote “street” drugs. So we’ll just have to see how this plays out. 

Roubein: Oh, I think with fentanyl strips, specifically, we’ve seen sort of a ping-pong with administrations, too. With, you’re talking about the politics, like Elinore McCance Katz, under Trump 1, who was the head of SAMHSA, opposed this. And then the Biden administration came in, and they had their drug strategy, which leaned heavily into harm reduction, which, as you mentioned duly, has been political. 

Rovner: Going back to needle exchanges in the early 2000s. It’s always been: Do you want to make it safer? And if you do make it safer, does that deter people from stopping using illegal drugs? That’s sort of the age-old debate about harm reduction. But you also don’t want when we had the overdose crisis, particularly when fentanyl first came on the scene. Do you really want people dying of fentanyl when they could have a test strip that costs a dollar and find out it’s, like: Ooh, this thing has been cut with fentanyl. Maybe I shouldn’t take it.  

Kenen: Right. Because if your goal is to get people into treatment and off of drugs, you can’t do that once they’re dead. 

Rovner: That is very true. All right. Finally, this week, there is vaccine news, because there is always vaccine news these days. The decision by the Department of Health and Human Services to drop the recommendation for the birth dose of the vaccine to protect against hepatitis B could result in hundreds of cases of the disease that could have been prevented and millions of dollars in additional healthcare costs to treat liver cancer and other complications. That’s according to   in this week’s JAMA Pediatrics journal. That’s partly because not every pregnant woman gets tested before giving birth, and also because there are other ways infants can contract the virus, that people keep saying, Oh, it’s only sexually transmitted. It’s not only sexually transmitted. There is such a thing as household transmission. I don’t suppose this study is going to change anybody’s mind who wanted the change on the hepatitis B vaccine in the first place, though, will it? 

Roubein: I think we’ve seen people in their camps on this one. The medical establishment, even some Republicans, Sen. Cassidy, etc., had been upset about this decision. 

Rovner: Yes, Sen. Cassidy, who is a liver specialist and is particularly unhappy with this decision, and yet, you know, science. So we will see if this also plays out. 

All right. That is this week’s news. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Shefali, why don’t you start us off this week? 

Luthra: Mine is from The Atlantic and KFF Health News by the wonderful Elisabeth Rosenthal. The headline is “.” And I would very much say that you should read this in installments, because it is very, very difficult to get through. It’s about how her husband died in the emergency room, and just the quality of care that he got, and for how long he was just boarded and â€” right? — kept without really getting the appropriate care, and how they knew that this was going to happen, because it had happened so many times and they’d gone to the ER. And she uses her experience as a journalist to also highlight how the problem of boarding has actually gotten a lot worse, which I didn’t realize, and we’ve all known for a long time that boarding is terrible, and being in the emergency department is actually really bad for you a lot of the time, even though it’s supposed to be a place for people in the midst of health crises. And I think there’s just a really effective blend of what her family’s story is and what the policy problems are. And â€” right? — by the end she realizes the only way to get appropriate care for her husband is to call somebody who she knows and see if they can get special treatment, which it just kind of is the way it is, I think, in a lot of these emergency departments. And I hope that when people read this and think about the experiences of their loved ones getting emergency care, they bring us to something where actually we can fix this. Because it feels like it’s something that, speaking of things that are easy to fix, everyone should want to. 

Rovner: Yeah, absolutely. It is quite the story. Rachel. 

Roubein: My extra credit this week, the headline is “Big Companies Position Themselves for Payday From $50B Federal Rural Health Fund,” by KFF Health News’ Sarah Jane Tribble. She writes about the $50 billion pot of money Congress earmarked for rural healthcare in America, which came amid Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill last summer, which also cut money to Medicaid. And Sarah, she writes about the tussle to get funds, which is kind of a persistent problem that we see in healthcare, and how small community healthcare providers may find they are sharing the billions with, as she called it, “an army of corporate giants before it reaches their patients.” And she talks about sort of a lack of digital infrastructure, which is generally an issue at rural hospitals, but how some state plans showed that a “heavy dose” of spending will go to companies that “increase the use of electronic health records, strengthen cybersecurity, and improve state and health system technology platforms.” I liked the story because I think it’s really interesting to see this fight over how to get funding for your healthcare system. 

Rovner: And making the point that they’re taking money away from everybody. And they say they’re giving back. First of all, they’re taking a trillion, $900 billion out and giving $50 billion back, so it doesn’t make up for the cuts. But also that the money that they’re giving back isn’t going to the places where they’re doing the cutting, which I think is sort of the broader point. Sorry. Go ahead. Joanne. 

Kenen: This is from ProPublica, by Anna Clark: “.” Basically, there’s now a new thread of disinformation that solar power is bad for us, not the power but that the process of capturing the sun’s power, that radiation is blocking things, and the noise, that there’s sort of, quote, “visual pollution.” So anyway, it’s interfering with the growth of, the spread of solar power in Michigan, which is one of the states that had been sort of â€” pretty far north and pretty cold â€” I hadn’t realized it was one of the targeted states for a big push for solar energy, but it is. We’ve seen health disinformation about pretty much everything, and the latest is the sun. 

Rovner: Yeah, really interesting story. My extra credit this week is from The New York Times, by Christina Jewett and Benjamin Mueller, and it’s called “.” The aide in question, Calley Means, is the brother of the wellness influencer nominated to serve as surgeon general, Casey Means. And now Calley Means is a full-time regular employee in the federal government. But for most of last year, when he was advising HHS Secretary Kennedy as a, quote, “special government employee,” he also continued to hold a large stake in the health company Truemed, which profits from people using money in their health savings accounts to pay for medical expenses insurance doesn’t cover. According to the story, that includes things like $10,000 saunas and radiation-blocking underwear. And health savings accounts were dramatically expanded last year in the Republican budget bill. Now, Calley Means says he didn’t work on HSA policy, but it’s hard to ignore just all the appearances of conflicts in this administration. And just because there are so many of them, shouldn’t really normalize it. So this has been really good shoe leather reporting here. 

OK, that is this week’s show. Before we go, some well-deserved kudos to some of our podcast panelists. [Bloomberg’s] Anna Edney has been named a winner of the annual NIHCM [National Institute for Health Care Management] health awards for her work on  about the high cost and often limited benefit of new cancer drugs, and [The Washington Post’s] Lauren Weber and our own Shefali Luthra here have been named finalists for the University of Michigan’s Livingston Award for young journalists, along with KFF Health News’ Aneri Pattani. I’m not kidding when I say we let you hear from the best and smartest reporters covering healthcare. 

As always, thanks to our editor this week, Stephanie Stapleton, and our producer-engineer, Francis Yang. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts, as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me on X, , or on Bluesky, . Where are you guys hanging these days? Joanne. 

Kenen: On  and . 

Rovner: Rachel. 

Roubein: On X, . Bluesky, . 

Rovner: Shefali. 

Luthra: On Bluesky, . 

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

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer
Stephanie Stapleton Editor

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This <a target="_blank" href="/podcast/what-the-health-444-hospital-pricing-congress-988-suicide-april-30-2026/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2232481&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2232481
When Natural Disasters Strike, Another Crisis Hits Those Recovering From Opioid Addiction /public-health/substance-use-disorder-treatment-natural-disasters-opioid-suboxone-emergency-supply/ Thu, 30 Apr 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2228583

If you or someone you know is seeking help for addiction recovery, contact the free and confidential treatment referral hotline, 1-800-662-HELP, or visit findtreatment.gov.


A day after Hurricane Helene ripped through western North Carolina in late September 2024, Toni Brewer had no power or water. The storm had strewn fallen trees across most roads, wiped out phone and internet communications, and put some neighborhoods near her Asheville home underwater.

Brewer cleared out the food in her refrigerator, grabbed some clothes, and drove more than an hour southwest with her partner to Franklin, to stay with relatives.

When she arrived, she opened the center console of her car, where she kept medication, and discovered another crisis. She had only three days’ worth of Suboxone, a brand of buprenorphine, a prescription drug that eases opioid cravings. Without it, she risked relapsing into a life she described as miserable.

She recalled what it felt like to have those cravings and panicked.

“It’s terrifying just to have that feeling again of, ‘I need this, and I’ll do whatever it takes to get this,’” said Brewer, who had been in recovery from opioid addiction for 18 months at the time. She needed a new prescription but knew communication lines at her doctor’s office were down.

Now, a group of doctors is using the example of Hurricane Helene to urge federal lawmakers to help improve access to substance use medications in severe weather emergencies. Four physicians working in addiction medicine that outlines strategies for getting medication to people in recovery during natural disasters.

As climate change  in the U.S., the group of doctors urged state and federal governments to act soon or risk allowing more disasters to aggravate overdoses, relapses, and deaths caused by opioid use disorder, an ongoing epidemic that has  people in the U.S. since 1999.

that after Superstorm Sandy in 2012, 70% of New Yorkers who relied on recovery medications couldn’t get enough of them. In the two years following Hurricane Maria’s devastation in Puerto Rico in 2017, , another study found. The Tubbs and Camp fires in Northern California in patients’ access to opioid addiction medications, found a study published in 2022.

A combination of factors aggravates the opioid crisis in the U.S., the AJPH editorial authors noted. Mental health stressors, treatment disruptions, drug market volatility, and economic decline all create conditions in which climate-related disasters heighten the risk of overdose deaths.

“We make it so challenging for them to access treatment medications in the first place,” said , the climate health director at Rowan University’s Cooper Medical School and a co-author of the editorial. “When people are displaced or unable to get to their usual clinics or pharmacies, those challenges just become insurmountable.”

Their push comes as President Donald Trump has had a markedly different approach to substance use policy in the past year than in his first term. Trump in 2017 declared the nation’s opioid crisis a national public health emergency and, in 2018, signed a law, known as theÌý, to expand access to treatments.

But his administration has also reduced federal resources for mental health and substance use services, cutting staffers last year at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and ending numerous grants to advance research on prevention efforts.

Disasters Threaten Treatment

SAMHSA works with states to ensure that access to opioid use disorder medication isn’t disrupted, Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard said. States can approve emergency measures to allow people more flexibility to obtain their treatments, she added, .

, another co-author of the editorial, saw these access issues play out in the wake of Hurricane Helene.

Stearns, the chief medical officer at High Country Community Health in North Carolina’s Blue Ridge Mountains, said the first calls to her clinics were for buprenorphine. She said people who needed the medication traveled over mountains and crossed rivers to get to her clinics.

“The things that my patients did to be able to access their bupe,” Stearns said, “it was astonishing.”

The that the federal government work with pharmacies to allow patients to take home more medication during emergencies. They suggest keeping a registry of patients with recovery medication prescriptions who can get treatment when evacuating across state lines.

And they propose factoring the need for such medications into disaster response plans, whether that means stocking rescue vehicles with buprenorphine, adding backup generators to opioid treatment clinics, or training volunteer responders.

People with substance use disorders already must often navigate strict, complex regulations to get the medications. For example, methadone can be obtained only through an in-person visit to federally controlled opioid treatment centers, many of which closed for days or weeks after Hurricane Helene.

Buprenorphine is controlled by the Drug Enforcement Administration’s , which restricts supply when pharmacies order more than allowed under specified thresholds. The system is meant to catch potential overuse of recovery medication in a region.

A young white woman with blonde curly hair
Toni Brewer escaped the chaos of Hurricane Helene in 2024 only to encounter immediate barriers to getting her opioid-recovery medication. Doctors have warned that many more patients could face such obstacles as climate change intensifies and collides with regulatory issues surrounding these treatments. (Toni Brewer)

, a clinical director of substance use disorder initiatives at the Mountain Area Health Education Center in western North Carolina, said that system delayed medications numerous times in the aftermath of Helene. No exceptions were allowed, .

The agency did not respond to questions about the system.

Individual pharmacies also control who gets medication and who doesn’t. When people try to get medication for opioid use disorder far from home, it can raise alarms.

“We realized there were some pharmacies that would just be like, ‘I don’t know this person. I will only give you three days’ worth, and I’m sure they’ll be back in Asheville soon,’” Fagan said. “They didn’t want to fill a month’s worth. And in our mind, we’re sitting in the disaster, and we’re like, ‘They’re not coming back in a month.’”

Risk of Relapse

When Brewer made it to Franklin, she immediately logged in to the Mountain Area Health Education Center patient portal, dubious about whether she would be able to have her three-month Suboxone prescription refilled.

She didn’t know that her doctors had left the area, too, to get a stable internet connection. They were trying to call and email patients to fill prescriptions.

Trying to be thorough, Brewer messaged several doctors. Two responded, and one filled her prescription.

But when she went to a local Walgreens, it was out of Suboxone. So Brewer took another trip, this time to Clayton, Georgia, where she was finally able to pick up a month’s worth.

The medication that would have been mostly covered by North Carolina Medicaid if she’d stayed in-state was about $130, a high price for Brewer, who had temporarily lost her job when her workplace, a sober living facility, lost power and closed because of the storm.

Despite what little income she had at the time, Brewer said, she paid for her prescription. The thought of relapsing back to her previous life when her addiction was untreated scared her, she said.

“I would wake up every day, and the only thing on my mind was finding my next fix so I could go on about my day, or even just take care of things like feed myself, or bathe, and show up for my daughter,” she said.

Brewer recalled feeling relief after getting her prescription refilled. Her panic washed away.

“Now I can worry about everything else,” she recalled thinking as she drove home to Asheville.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This <a target="_blank" href="/public-health/substance-use-disorder-treatment-natural-disasters-opioid-suboxone-emergency-supply/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2228583&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2228583
Saving Lives by Changing Lives: The Next Frontier in Suicide Prevention /mental-health/suicide-prevention-mental-health-upstream-solutions-eleven-minutes/ Wed, 29 Apr 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2230139

If you or someone you know may be experiencing a mental health crisis, contact the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by dialing or texting “988.”


Someone in America dies by suicide every 11 minutes. It’s that common. But not normal.

Humans have evolved over centuries to survive. So when people try to kill themselves, something has gone wrong. Typically, the assumption is that something happened in the person’s mind — a mental illness.

But in recent decades, there’s been a growing movement to ask a different question: What went wrong in the world around that person?

For Chris Pawelski, it was a torrent of factors. His dad — one of his best friends, whom he worked with daily for decades — was diagnosed with renal cancer and died six months later. Pawelski was left as the primary caregiver for his mom, who had dementia.

His family’s in New York’s Orange County — where he first worked as a 5-year-old, collecting onions that fell out of crates — was hemorrhaging money. Pawelski said he was growing roughly $200,000 worth of crops some years but took home only about $20,000, unable to negotiate higher prices with wholesale buyers that dominated the market.

Debt to suppliers and equipment vendors piled up, and the burden strained his marriage. He had little time for friends, working sunup to sundown seven days a week, desperately trying to preserve his family’s legacy.

“It’s all stuff collapsing down upon you,” he said. “It’s weeks, months, years of dealing with all sorts of pressures that you can’t alleviate.”

Pawelski started wondering what it would be like to get hit by a truck on the busy road in front of his house. “You think you’re already on your way out, so why wait?” he said.

A barn is seen behind a man driving a green tractor across a field
  (Jeffrey Basinger for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)
A man wearing a red shirt and a baseball cap is seen through a cracked windshield
After his father died, Pawelski became his mother’s primary caregiver. Meanwhile he was struggling to preserve his farm — his family’s legacy. “It’s all stuff collapsing down upon you,” he says. (Jeffrey Basinger for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

Millions of Americans have , and tens of thousands . Suicide repeatedly ranks among the — making the U.S. an .

Prevention efforts have typically focused on connecting individuals in crisis with treatment — despite therapy and medication being , the healthcare system , and a consensus that suicide is caused by a , including but not limited to mental illness.

Now, many people working to prevent suicide, including some who have tried to harm themselves or lost a loved one to it, are calling for a broader approach. Some were galvanized by the covid pandemic, when rates of — not because everyone’s brain chemistry suddenly changed but because the world changed. That led many to believe that, while treatments and crisis care are vital, the goal of suicide prevention needs to expand beyond stopping people from dying to also giving them reasons to live.

“It’s not rocket science,” said , a psychologist and internationally recognized suicide prevention researcher who lost her brother to suicide. If “you have happier, healthier people, they live longer, happier lives.”

That means suicide prevention shouldn’t be limited to answering hotlines or treating patients in psychiatric wards, she said. It should also involve running food banks to ensure families don’t go hungry or hosting weekly book clubs for homebound seniors to make friends. It can take the form of school programs that build resilience in children or housing policies that prevent evictions.

U.S. Suicide Rate One of the Highest Among High-Income Countries (Bar Chart)

shows these — even if they don’t have the words “mental health” or “suicide” in the title — can reduce the number of people who kill themselves. They often lower rates of crime, addiction, and poverty, too.

The U.S. has lagged other countries in adopting this approach, Spencer-Thomas said, perhaps because it’s easier — and more politically palatable — to tell someone to go to therapy than it is to enact sweeping policy changes, such as an .

“As long as we have that convenient narrative that it’s just a bunch of broken people needing medicine and treatment, then we’re never accountable for fixing the broken things in our communities,” Spencer-Thomas said.

The Trump Administration’s Approach

Overhauling suicide prevention efforts to focus on broad social and economic policies might seem overwhelming and unrealistic — especially right now. This approach requires large upfront investments that lack across-the-board support, either because of budgeting realities or ideological bents.

President Donald Trump and his appointees have said little about suicide directly, but many of their policies do the opposite of what shows .

The administration has championed and the that are projected to leave and in coming years. It has injected uncertainty into the economy through , , and . It has for school-based mental health initiatives, gutted federal programs that focus on at-risk blue collar workers, and . (Suicides are the in America.)

“All of these changes are creating a firestorm,” said , the chief advocacy officer for the National Alliance on Mental Illness. They can cause “extreme stress and anxiety” in people’s lives, she added, and “when people feel desperate, that’s when crises can emerge.”

A woman wearing red glasses stands in front of a screen as she holds a microphone.
Sally Spencer-Thomas, a psychologist and researcher, says suicide prevention shouldn’t be limited to hotlines or psychiatric wards. She says it should also involve programs that help improve people’s lives and make them feel more connected to one another. (Sally Spencer-Thomas)

Federal health officials insist that suicide prevention remains a priority.

, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s injury center, said the agency is focused on creating systems that can support people “no matter what may be happening” in the world around them. “There’s always going to be turmoil in people’s lives,” she added.

Arwady and , who leads suicide prevention work at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, said several of the Trump administration’s priorities align with an upstream approach.

For example, they said, its could help address the , since exercise is proven . Similarly, people who are homeless have , and the administration has been . Federal officials have also encouraged , and research shows members of faith communities are .

However, the Trump administration has made at and and has for , leading to questions about whether or how this work will continue.

A History of Medical and Crisis Care

Suicide prevention reached the national stage in the late 1990s, said , who worked at the CDC for 15 years before joining the , a nonprofit focused on teen and young-adult mental health.

As suicide rates grew among young people, a group of government officials, clinicians, and advocates gathered in Reno, Nevada, in 1998 to discuss the pressing issue. Over the next few years, the surgeon general and the federal government published its .

These documents acknowledged the role of society and economics in suicide risk but focused heavily on identifying people in crisis and increasing access to medical treatment.

Those are critical steps to suicide prevention, many mental health researchers and clinicians say. They’re also politically favorable. For elected officials, who have a few years to demonstrate their achievements before the next campaign, it’s easier to count the number of people receiving therapy than the number of people who never developed suicidal thoughts because long-term economic and social investments helped them maintain steady jobs and strong friendships.

The push for individual treatment also comes from a pervasive misconception that suicide is always the result of an underlying mental illness, said , who is the senior director of population health at Mental Health America and contributed to a .

Although how many people who die by suicide — with estimates from to — the takeaway is that mental illness is not the sole cause, Reinert said. That means treating it can’t be the sole response.

Plus, mental illnesses can be by life circumstances. Treating depressive symptoms without looking at factors such as childhood trauma, the loss of a loved one, or being laid off from a job is an incomplete approach, many mental health researchers and clinicians say.

The covid pandemic, especially, made people in the field recognize “we really need to address all of these conditions that are creating stress, anxiety, and crises,” Stone said.

In July 2022, the federal government — a shorter number for the national suicide crisis line, meant to provide an alternative to 911 for mental health emergencies.

, who led federal work on 988, said the infusion of money and attention on the hotline helped states build better crisis response systems, from centers that answer calls to mobile crisis units.

But that’s not enough to solve America’s suicide problem, she said. “You’ll never be able to build a system based on crisis alone.”

After big losses in 2020, Pawelski and his wife, Eve, decided they could no longer farm onions for wholesale buyers. They called NY FarmNet, which helped them develop a plan to change to small-scale farming and sell directly to consumers. (Jeffrey Basinger for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

Help for the Farm and the Farmer

Pawelski, the onion farmer in New York, hit his breaking point in 2020.

He had a decent crop that year, but Canadian exporters were into American markets, making it difficult for him to sell his product.

“I was having to beg people” to buy, he said. And when he managed to sell, prices were comparable to prices in the 1980s.

By the end of the season, he had incurred losses of a few hundred thousand dollars.

He said he and his wife decided, “We couldn’t afford to grow onions again.”

The idea that his family’s onion farm would end with him was “soul-crushing,” Pawelski said. He lost weight rapidly and thought about ending his life.

He and his wife called for help. Founded at Cornell University in 1986, the free program connects farmers with two consultants: a financial analyst specializing in farm planning and a social worker focused on emotional concerns and family dynamics.

A woman stands at a kitchen countertop with two cats behind her and a man sits at a kitchen table in the background
Eve Pawelski encouraged her husband, Chris, to change the way their farm operates and go to therapy to improve his mental health. (Jeffrey Basinger for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)
A woman stands at a sink while looking out a kitchen window
Together, they transitioned to small-scale farming, stabilized their business model, and are paying down debt. (Jeffrey Basinger for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

The financial specialist helped Pawelski develop a new business plan. Instead of farming onions for wholesale, he could grow greens, tomatoes, peppers, and eggplants at a small scale to sell directly to consumers. He could upgrade an old truck with a cooler and deliver produce to people’s doors. He would supplement that income with teaching, speaking engagements, and other work that took advantage of his master’s degree in communications.

The social worker helped him accept that new reality — equally crucial, Pawelski said. “If you’re pissed off” about the change, “no matter what kind of proposal or idea they have, it’s not going to go anywhere.”

The adjustment took months. Pawelski also saw a therapist during that time.

Then one day a neighbor noted that Pawelski seemed much happier. That “caught me off guard,” Pawelski recalled. He didn’t realize his inner transformation was so apparent.

Today, Pawelski’s business has stabilized, and he and his wife are paying down debt. Pawelski advocates for programs to help farmers’ mental health and address their .

That can mean crisis hotlines and access to affordable therapy, Pawelski said. But what he really wants are policy changes that help farmers get fair prices for their produce, debt relief, and the installation of broadband internet in rural areas so farm families and employees can be connected.

“We need to think broader and longer-term than a helpline,” he said. That’s “a band-aid on a gunshot wound.”

A drone photograph of farm fields with hills in the background and a green tractor in the foreground
With his farm more financially stable, today Chris Pawelski advocates for programs to help farmers’ mental health and address their higher-than-average suicide rates. (Jeffrey Basinger for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)
Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This <a target="_blank" href="/mental-health/suicide-prevention-mental-health-upstream-solutions-eleven-minutes/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2230139&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2230139
RFK Jr. vs. Congress /podcast/what-the-health-443-rfk-robert-kennedy-jr-congress-hearings-april-23-2026/ Thu, 23 Apr 2026 18:20:00 +0000 The Host
Julie Rovner photo
Julie Rovner Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. completed his marathon tour of House and Senate committees this week to defend President Donald Trump’s proposed budget for his department, but he got grilled on lots of non-budget matters as well, most notably his proposed changes to the childhood vaccine schedule.

Meanwhile, Trump made some of his own health policy, signing an executive order to facilitate the use of hallucinogens to treat mental health conditions. That action came just days after it was suggested to him in a text message from podcaster/influencer Joe Rogan, who was present in the Oval Office for the signing.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, Victoria Knight of Bloomberg Government, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Sheryl Gay Stolberg of The New York Times.

Panelists

Victoria Knight photo
Victoria Knight Bloomberg Government
Alice Miranda Ollstein photo
Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico
Sheryl Gay Stolberg photo
Sheryl Gay Stolberg The New York Times

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • There were fewer fireworks than expected during Kennedy’s four-day, whirlwind tour of Capitol Hill. One thing that was clear is that Kennedy got the political memo that he is to watch his vaccine rhetoric and keep the focus on politically palatable topics such as chronic disease and healthy eating. Still, there were episodes of indignation and grandstanding, from the secretary and from lawmakers. Kennedy also sometimes struggled to defend administration proposals to cut funding.
  • Among members who pressed Kennedy on vaccines was Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who is facing a difficult primary challenge. Cassidy, a physician, has in the past clashed with Kennedy over vaccines and has been targeted by the Make America Healthy Again movement. In hearings, however, Cassidy led with questions on abortion issues, which fit more aptly into his red-state politics. Meanwhile, though Cassidy’s Senate seat is considered at risk, it’s not clear that the MAHA muscle on the ground is living up to the threat.
  • Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has decreed that annual flu shots will no longer be required for active-duty and reserve military service members. This appears to be a sign that the balance between public health and personal liberty is tilting toward the latter more than ever. It also is contrary to conventional wisdom that the flu, unchecked, could take a toll on the armed services. Minimizing the threat of flu among the troops has been viewed as a readiness issue.
  • Meanwhile, National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya, in his role filling in as leader of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has reportedly canceled publication of a study that found the covid vaccine dramatically reduced hospitalizations and emergency room visits. News reports indicate that Bhattacharya objected to the study’s methodology, but CDC officials say it’s the same methodology used in the past.

Also this week, in the latest installment of our “How Would You Fix It?” series, Rovner interviews doctor, author, and Harvard public health professor David Blumenthal about his ideas for making the health system work better.

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

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “,” by Rachel Roubein.

Sheryl Gay Stolberg: Politico’s “,” by Amanda Friedman and Alice Miranda Ollstein.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Washington Post’s “,” by Carolyn Y. Johnson, Lydia Sidhom, and Susan Svrluga.

Victoria Knight: The New York Times’ “,” by Sarah Kliff and Margot Sanger-Katz.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

  • Politico’s “,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein and Liz Crampton.
  • The Washington Post’s “,” by Lena H. Sun.
  • The Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ “,” by Bernard Guyer, Mary Anne Freedman, Donna M. Strobino, and Edward J. Sondik.
click to open the transcript Transcript: RFK Jr. vs. Congress

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. And, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, April 23, 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 Sheryl Gay Stolberg of The New York Times. 

Sheryl Gay Stolberg: Hi, Julie. 

Rovner: Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: And we welcome back to the podcast my former Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleague Victoria Knight, now at Bloomberg. 

Victoria Knight: Hi, everyone. Happy to be back. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have the latest installment of our “How Would You Fix It?” series. This week with David Blumenthal, a physician, health policy expert, author, and former Obama administration official. He literally wrote the book on the history of presidents and health reform through George W. Bush, and he has a brand-new book on the last three presidents and their health care policies. But first, this week’s news.  

So, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr. on Wednesday completed his tour of Capitol Hill, having appeared before seven separate House and Senate committees in four days of hearings. Ostensibly, Kennedy’s appearances were to answer questions about President [Donald] Trump’s budget proposal for the Department of Health and Human Services. But, as usual, there were lots of other topics as well, as this was the first time the secretary appeared before some of these panels, and the first time some of these members of Congress got to question him in person ever. Victoria, you sat through all of the hearings, right? Or at least all the hearings this week. What was your big takeaway? I guess, not as many fireworks as some of us might have been expecting? 

Knight: Yeah, definitely not as many fireworks. I mean, I think that it’s pretty clear Kennedy has gotten a mandate in some way from the administration to watch his rhetoric, basically, especially his vaccine rhetoric. And we even, at Bloomberg, we’ve had reporting directly saying that he’s â€¦&²Ô²ú²õ±è;there’s an internal memo that said, you know, he’d keep his messaging on chronic diseases and nutrition and health care affordability, you know, more palatable topics. So I think he definitely tried to stick to that messaging. But there were points where the Kennedy that has for years been anti-vaccine came back through. And so we saw that in certain lines of questioning. And also he really wasn’t able to justify the cuts. He was there on the Hill to testify about the HHS budget, which President Trump proposed putting in still significant cuts to HHS. It wasn’t as deep as proposed last year. But there wasn’t really any good justification that Kennedy provided, except that the U.S. is in a lot of debt, and they need to, we need to reduce it. But he kept being, like, The programs are still goodWe need to do these programs.  

Rovner: I’m amused, because this, you know, goes back forever of when Cabinet secretaries come up to justify cuts to their departments that they clearly don’t want to make, and they’re not allowed to say, But it wasn’t my idea.  

Knight: Well, and also that they know Congress will reject it. And so it’s, it’s kind of all fake anyways. All these congressional appropriators are like, Yeah, this is not happening

Rovner: Yeah. Hence the reason why they get to talk about other things. I will say one thing that I noticed is that he was less rude to these committees than he had been in previous appearances on Capitol Hill.  

Stolberg: Really? 

Rovner: Yeah.  

Stolberg: I sat through all seven of them. Julie. I thought he was pretty rude. 

Rovner: I guess it’s all in how you look at it. I thought he wasn’t. Yes, he was definitely still rude, but I really thought there were times when he had now sort of taken the briefing that you get, which is to try and agree with something that a member of Congress says, and says, I will work with you, which he hasn’t done before. He’d just been combative before.  

Stolberg: That maybe is true, but he has a habit of addressing members of Congress by their first name, which is a serious violation of protocol. And he was rebuked in the House last week for doing that with Frank Pallone, the Democrat of New Jersey. He did apologize for that, which I thought was interesting. But that did not stop him from also accusing senators of, Democrats, of making stuff up, grandstanding, and, you know, fake indignation. And, you know, he yells at them. And then at one point, Diana Harshbarger, the Republican in the House that was chairing the committee, said to him, she just said, I think it’d be best if everybody would just simmer down.  

Rovner: Yeah, there were definitely moments.  

Stolberg: And I would add to what Alice [Victoria] said, I do think that the big takeaway was that vaccines really still dominate his tenure. That is the defining issue of his tenure. [Sen. Bill] Cassidy yesterday was very pointed in correcting Kennedy when Kennedy cited a study that he said showed that advances in or reductions in deaths from an infectious disease were largely due to hygiene and sanitation, which is actually true in the first half of the 20th century, before vaccines were introduced. And the second line in that study, which Kennedy did not cite, was that, you know, vaccines had made an incredible difference and were extremely important. And Cassidy had somebody look up that study in the middle of the hearing and came back to Kennedy and said, This is what you didn’t say. You took it out of context.  

Rovner: Yeah, I was actually very impressed, because first Cassidy couldn’t find the study, and then â€¦&²Ô²ú²õ±è;

Stolberg: I knew the study because I had cited it before. 

Rovner: I had a feeling you probably knew it. I was trying to find it, and I couldn’t find it. So I was glad that they did.  

Stolberg: It’s in the Journal of Pediatrics in 2000 by an author named Guyer, not David Geier, but G-U-Y-E-R. You can look it up.  

Rovner: We could. I will  in the show notes. OK. 

Knight: I did want to mention also, I do think Cassidy did press Kennedy on vaccines. Certainly, everyone was watching that very closely because of his hesitation last year to vote for Kennedy, and really talking about struggling with the vote, and extracting all these commitments from Kennedy, ostensibly to vote for him, for HHS secretary. Cassidy did not mention any of those, like Kennedy violating any of those commitments, which he clearly has. He was supposed to be in frequent contact with the HELP [Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee] chair, go up to the Hill quarterly. He hadn’t been to the â€” Kennedy had not been to the Hill since September. In some of the committees, he hadn’t been there since last year, the last budget proposal. So Cassidy also did not mention these childhood vaccine recommendation overhaul that Kennedy did, which is a huge deal. And he did not mention the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices being completely overhauled as well, and all those members being fired, which are two things Cassidy said he extracted commitments from Kennedy on. So I just want to make that point. Yes. 

Stolberg: One quick on that. After the hearing, I asked Cassidy, “Do you think Kennedy has lived up to his promises to you?” And he looked at me and he said, “We’ll talk later.” 

Rovner: I would say, Alice, you wrote a separate story about the fix in which Chairman Cassidy finds himself. He’s being challenged in a primary by a Republican congresswoman endorsed by the Make America Healthy Again PAC. I thought Cassidy was actually more restrained than I expected him to be in yesterday’s hearings. Although I think I guess it was our colleagues at The [Washington] Post who thought he was pretty combative. I mean, what did you take away from the Cassidy-Kennedy relationship? 

Ollstein: Yeah, definitely. I mean, one thing I noticed with both Cassidy and a few other Republicans is one of the few topics where they feel comfortable really going after Kennedy and the Trump administration more broadly is abortion. They think that the administration has not done enough to restrict access to abortion pills, and so they felt more comfortable hammering Kennedy on that issue. You saw Cassidy do that. You saw [Sen. Steve] Daines and a couple of other very anti-abortion senators raise that. And I think that’s an area where they feel like they’re more aligned with the sort of activist GOP base than the administration is. And so whatever blowback they would get for questioning the administration is outweighed by their anti-abortion bona fides. So â€¦&²Ô²ú²õ±è;

Rovner: Although I would say, I will interrupt before you finish and say I thought it was interesting that the members kept doing that because I thought most of it was for show, because we knew early on, because he’s been to all of these committees, that Kennedy was not going to talk about the FDA study on the abortion pill because there’s pending litigation, which is an easy out. But they made, they all made their little speeches, and they knew exactly what he was going to say.  

Ollstein: Oh, absolutely, absolutely. I mean, they want to be seen fighting on the issue, for sure. I’ve talked to a lot of anti-abortion activists who say, you know, Look, the Trump administration keeps saying we got to go through the process with the studyWe got to go through the process with the courts. We got to check all the boxes. And the anti-abortion activists point out, you know â€” correctly, I think â€” that the administration has been very willing to break with protocol, and even, you know, legal procedure on a bunch of other issues, and they’re saying â€¦&²Ô²ú²õ±è;

Rovner: Which we’ll get to in a moment.  

Ollstein: â€¦&²Ô²ú²õ±è;Why not us? Why are they so careful when it comes to our issue when, clearly, they do whatever they want on other issues? And so, I mean, that is a fair point, and I think it’s going to be a continuing frustration. The  is the influence of the Make America Healthy Again, MAHA, as a political force. We’re going to really get a key test of that in Cassidy’s primary that’s coming up in just a few weeks. MAHA has put a big target on him and wants to knock him out. And my colleague and I took a really critical look at their influence in the race, and it’s sort of not living up to the hype, I would say. MAHA is not making a big impact financially in the race, and they are not making a big impact, really, in messaging. They haven’t succeeded in putting MAHA issues â€” like vaccines, like healthy food, chemicals in the environment â€” they haven’t made those the top issues in this race. It’s sort of the same bread-and-butter, cost-of-living Republican red meat stuff that you’re seeing in other states. And so, I think, you know, we talked to a lot of people, you know, close to the situation, who said, even if Cassidy loses, it’s not going to be because of MAHA. And so I don’t know if that makes him more willing to tangle with RFK in these hearings or not.  

Rovner: I did think, I thought that it was politics that made him lead with abortion, though, because he â€¦&²Ô²ú²õ±è;I mean, Louisiana, as we know, is one of the most anti-abortion of all the anti-abortion states. He’s been a longtime anti-abortion crusader. This is not a new position for him, and he’s got this primary, so he would like to bring out his supporters. I mean â€¦&²Ô²ú²õ±è;I saw that. It’s like, oh, aha, politically, that makes sense, even though he knew that Kennedy wasn’t going to respond to the question.  

Aside from the secretary’s continuing denial of the accusation that he is anti-vax, there was, in fact, considerable anti-vaccine-related news this week. First, over at the Defense Department, where Secretary Pete Hegseth has decreed that annual flu shots will no longer be required for active-duty and reserve military members. This is, according to Hegseth, “because your body, your faith, and your convictions are not negotiable.” Now, flu vaccines have routinely been given to members of the military since just after World War II for the fairly obvious reason that viral infections pass easily among people who are living together in close quarters, like, you know, members of the military. And vaccine requirements in the military, in general, date back to the Revolutionary War, when George Washington ordered troops to submit to the then fairly new smallpox vaccine. Sheryl, you’re our public health historian at the table. Has there ever been a time when the balance between personal liberty and public health has been tilted so heavily towards personal liberty as it is right now?  

Stolberg: I don’t think so. We’ve had anti-vaccine activism in the United States for as long as we’ve had vaccines. And especially at the turn of the 20th century, around the time when smallpox was kind of racing through Boston and other cities, there was a big anti-vaccine push. You might remember, in 1905, the Supreme Court ruled that states could mandate vaccination to protect the public health, and that was in a case brought by a pastor in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who didn’t want to get vaccinated for smallpox. And then we had the ’60s, when, you know, vaccines were new, and public health people were touting them, and there was a big embrace of vaccination. So it’s very interesting to see what Hegseth has done. And what came up yesterday in the HELP Committee hearing, where [Sen.] Patty Murray reminded Kennedy that during the Great Influenza of 1918, the flu was very indiscriminate, and a lot of soldiers were killed. It did not strike only young people and old people. It struck down people in the prime of their life, many, many in the military. And she said that, you know, this was an issue for readiness. And Kennedy was like, You think the flu is going to kill people? Like, the flu is not going to kill people. And it seemed obvious to me that he did not really understand that influenza is not the same all the time, that the virus mutates, and it very well could mutate into a pandemic strain. And he himself is pushing for a universal influenza vaccine, which has been kind of like the dream of public health people, so we could guard against, you know, all types of flu strains. 

Rovner: And not have to redo the vaccine every year. 

Stolberg: Right. So, in short answer to your question, I think certainly not in the last 50 or even 100 years have we seen the ascendancy of the medical freedom movement and the argument that individual liberty takes precedence over the health of the community. 

Rovner: Yeah. Alice, you wanted to add something. 

Ollstein: Yeah. I’ve also seen a lot of people pointing out that it’s not like this is an across-the-board embrace of individual liberty. I mean, if you’re in the military, you still can’t grow a beard if you’re a man, even if you have a skin condition where shaving really hurts and is bad for your skin. You don’t have the personal medical freedom to transition from male to female, or female to male. You don’t even have the personal freedom to wear what you want, to have the hairstyle you want, and so this is really just about vaccines. And, like Sheryl said, you know, really could threaten military readiness. There have been several wars in the past where more soldiers died of disease than died of violent combat impacts. So this is a very interesting carve-out that has a lot of people worried. 

Rovner: Also on the vaccine front at HHS, NIH [National Institutes of Health] Director Jay Bhattacharya, who was actually acting in his role as acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has reportedly canceled publication of a study that found the covid vaccine dramatically reduced hospitalizations and emergency department visits. Bhattacharya,  and The New York Times, complained that the study’s methodology was flawed. But CDC officials say not only is it the same methodology used in the past, but it’s also basically unheard of for a study approved by CDC’s own scientists not to be published in the agency’s “Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report” once it reached the stage that this study had reached. Is there any conclusion to be drawn here? Other than that the study’s results contradict the administration’s position that the covid vaccine is not helpful.  

Stolberg: Raises a question about radical transparency, that’s for sure. Secretary Kennedy came into office promising radical transparency. This doesn’t seem radically transparent.  

Rovner: No. Kennedy keeps saying â€” and he said how many times during these hearings? â€” that he’s trying to restore trust in the science agencies. And this does not strike a lot of people as a way to restore trust when something is canceled because you don’t like the results. Victoria, did you want to add something?  

Knight: Yeah, I mean, I think that’s a great point. He just said multiple times throughout all these hearings, especially when Democrats were questioning him on vaccines, that I’m willing to look at studies, I’m willing to look at data, I’m willing to review everything, if you’re bringing up maybe things he allegedly said he had not seen before, data or whatever. So yeah, exactly this goes exactly against that. You would think if there’s a study showing something, he’d be willing to view it. If that was his philosophy. 

Rovner: We would see. All right. Well, meanwhile, President Trump continues to make his health policy out of the White House. Last Saturday, he summoned his top health officials, plus popular podcaster Joe Rogan, to the Oval Office to sign an executive order to facilitate research into and to fast-track FDA review of some previously banned psychedelic substances, including ibogaine and LSD, which are legally considered to have no medicinal uses. This is actually not all that controversial. It’s part of an ongoing push from researchers who say that some of these substances might well be useful for treating things like severe depression, PTSD, and even opioid dependence. But what made this so unusual is that it was apparently pushed to fruition in just a matter of days by a text from Joe Rogan to President Trump. So what message does this send about the so-called gold-standard science being the only thing that counts in this administration, when a podcaster with a big following that the president wants can spring loose a major policy shift in less than a week? 

Stolberg: So I have a theory about this, actually. Well, first, it is highly unusual that Trump would step in on this, right? Like it’s not the ordinary course of science that the president issues these executive orders. But Casey Means, who is President Trump’s nominee for surgeon general, has advocated the use of psilocybin, and so has Secretary Kennedy, for that matter. But this is one of the things that is kind of stalling her nomination. [Sen.] Susan Collins has raised concerns about this. I guess I just kind of wonder if Trump is trying to put his imprimatur on this research, maybe as a backhanded way to give her a boost? Or maybe I’m just too Machiavellian, and maybe it’s just that Joe Rogan texted him, and he was like, Yeah, that’s a good idea

Rovner: And it was, in fairness, it was already in the works. 

Stolberg: Yeah. And, I mean, there is a lot of legitimate scientific reasons to do this kind of research. 

Rovner: And, I will say, I mean, I’ve studied this, and I believe breaking just today, they’re, you know, rescheduling marijuana. Again, all of these technical changes are to make it easier to do the research. Part of the problem has been that because these substances were scheduled as having no medicinal uses, you couldn’t get them to do the research. So one of the things that this does is make it easier. To have Joe Rogan in the Oval Office on a Saturday morning struck me as, like, OK, this is a little strange. 

Knight: But isn’t that how this administration works? Right? I mean, I think that, just in general, there’s a lot of influencer types that â€” I would say, Joe Rogan, podcaster, influencer type â€” that just have influence in this White House because they have forged a connection with Trump. And so, if they say something to him, he will take that into account and change policy sometimes. 

Rovner: And he wants the young male demographic, which Joe Rogan very much represents. All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back.  

OK, we are back. And turning to the Affordable Care Act, despite reassurances from Trump administration officials that the lapse of the Biden-era additional premium tax credits didn’t result in a big drop in coverage, we’re getting more data suggesting that is not the case. A new report this week from the group representing the 21 states that run their own marketplaces show[s] about 900,000 enrollees dropped coverage in the first three months of this year. Compared to last year, disenrollments are up 24%. Hardest hit, not surprisingly, are older enrollees between the age 55 and 64. Their premiums are higher to begin with, so the loss of additional subsidies hits them harder. Meanwhile, even people who have managed to keep coverage are paying more, as many dropped the more generous “gold” and “silver” plans, for those with higher deductibles but lower premiums. And those deductibles are often eye-popping indeed â€” not just $1,000 or $1,500 a year, but often more than five figures. I know I say this roughly every other week, but I’m surprised this isn’t making more of an impact in the national conversation. I mean, you know, I keep seeing people who say I’m having to drop my insurance or, you know, I have insurance and I can’t afford to use it because my deductible is $10,000. I know it sort of swept into this whole “affordability” thing, but I thought this might have come up more during seven hearings with the secretary of HHS.  

Knight: I mean, I think it’s partly because there is just so much happening in the world right now that everything else is getting pushed aside in a way, if it’s not related to the Iran war or gas prices or things like that. But I do think, I mean, we’ll see, but Democrats, once we were starting to get â€” you know, we just started to get some of this data about ACA enrollment and how it’s changing now that the premium tax credit, enhanced premium tax credits, were not extended by Congress, we’re just now starting to get some of the data. So I think as we see more data, and then we’ll see even more of that going into the summer, I think Democrats, at least, will be hitting this really hard on the campaign trail, and maybe that will permeate and become part of more of the national conversation. We’ll see, but they’re at least gonna message on it, certainly.  

Rovner: Yeah, I think, you know, one of the things that’s important to remember is that the administration, it’s telling the truth when it says, you know, most people were still enrolled in January, because a lot of those people got auto-enrolled. And it takes several months of not paying your premiums before you can actually get kicked off your insurance. So in fact, we’re only just starting to see how many people. 

Ollstein: This is just the beginning. And the fact that we’re already seeing such coverage losses means that there’s going to be more. And I think it’s going to have a political impact in certain contexts. I mean, there was a report just about the big drop in enrollment in Georgia, and Georgia is a major swing state with some major races coming up, and so I expect it to have a big impact there. And so I think, rather than being like a dominant national message, I think in certain places where you’re really seeing the strain. I’ll also point out that it’s not just about people becoming completely uninsured. There’s also a big shift from people being in more comprehensive health care plans to people moving into skimpy, high-deductible health care plans. And that’s going to have a lot of ripple effects going forward as well, and going to lead to a lot of struggle. And so I think it contributes to the overall sense that people are really in financial dire straits and can’t afford basic daily life.  

Stolberg: We’re going to see that, coupled with a lot of Democrats talking, as they did during the hearings, about cuts to Medicaid. Kennedy insists that we’re not cutting Medicaid, but if you talk to any rural hospital executive around the country, they will tell you that they are crumbling under the loss of Medicaid reimbursements. And I think that those, the Medicaid and also the ACA enrollments, will emerge as powerful issues for Democrats.  

Rovner: Kennedy was repeating the age-old argument that’s always made that if the amount of money to Medicaid goes up, it can’t be a cut, even though that doesn’t keep up with inflation or enrollment or the number of people. Yeah, so, I mean, it’s like â€¦&²Ô²ú²õ±è;if you’re paying more, if your mortgage goes up and you’re paying more for it and it goes up more than you’re paying, than you’re able to pay, then that’s really a cut in your income. So it’s a perennial argument that we do see.  

Stolberg: It’s Washington accounting.  

Rovner: Yeah. Finally, this week, there is news on the reproductive health front. In Pennsylvania, a state appellate court ruled that a 1982 ban on the use of public funds to pay for abortion violates that state’s Equal Rights Amendment. Now this case could still be appealed to the state Supreme Court, but this is a pretty significant ruling for a very purple swing state, right, Alice? And it could lead to state-funded Medicaid coverage for abortion, if it’s upheld. 

Ollstein: That’s right. And I will say there was a major state Supreme Court race last year, and it was all about abortion rights â€” that was, like, the dominating issue in it. And the progressives prevailed on that message. I think you’re really seeing, like you said, a very mixed state, a very purple state, really being swayed in the direction of supporting abortion rights. And we’ve seen that in a lot of states, you know, since Dobbs â€” states you might not expect to go in that direction. And I think it’s going to continue to dominate state Supreme Court races as an issue. You’re seeing that right now with Georgia. I would advise folks to keep an eye on that. There’s a very pro-abortion rights message for those candidates in that race. â€¦&²Ô²ú²õ±è;But this is specifically the issue of Medicaid coverage of abortion, I think, is going to keep coming up over and over as well, because it’s really getting at the question of, yes, you can have legal access to abortion on paper, but if you can’t afford it, is it really accessible? So this could open up access to a lot of low-income people that would not maybe be able to afford it otherwise.  

Rovner: And for the people who are wondering, Wait a minute, I thought Medicaid coverage of abortion is banned â€” it’s federal Medicaid coverage of abortion is banned. States may use their own money if they wish to pay for abortion, and many bluer states do. That’s the question at hand here.  

Meanwhile, in South Carolina, lawmakers are advancing a ban on abortion that’s so strict it would subject women who have abortions to punishment, although not as severe as the punishment for those who perform abortions. I thought this was a basic tenet of the anti-abortion movement, that the women who have abortions are also victims and shouldn’t be punished. Is that changing?  

Ollstein: It’s been a very loud debate recently. You have different wings of the anti-abortion movement who are clashing on this, and many are watching the total number of abortions in the U.S. go up since Dobbs, and say this incremental strategy where we shield women who have abortions from prosecution and only go after the doctors. Some of the hard-liners feel that that’s not working, and so they have to try something else in order to actually have the chilling effect that they want to have and deter people from even attempting to get abortions. And then you have a lot of the more mainstream groups who really are against that strategy, and say that, you know, this will just drive voters into the arms of Democrats if we look like we’re the quote-unquote “war on women” that we’ve been accused of waging all these years. And so it’s a very active debate right now.  

Stolberg: I was going to say, do you remember when Trump was running in 2015 and he said that he thought women should be punished for having abortions? And there was a big firestorm over it from the anti-abortion movement. And he basically shut up on that. 

Rovner: Yes, I do remember that.  

Stolberg: So â€¦&²Ô²ú²õ±è;you can see how things have evolved. Of course, that was, you know, when Roe was still into effect. Then we got Dobbs, and, as Alice said, things are changing.  

Rovner: Yes, things are changing. All right. Well, that is this week’s news, or at least as much as we have time for. Now we will play my “How Would You Fix It?” interview with David Blumenthal, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome to “How Would You Fix It?” David Blumenthal, a true Renaissance man of health policy. When I first met David in the 1980s, he was teaching at Harvard Medical School, doctoring in Boston, and writing about health policy. Since then, he has served as president of the health policy research organization The Commonwealth Fund, and, before that, as national coordinator for health information technology in the Obama administration. In his “spare time,” air quotes, David has written countless journal and other articles and several books, most notably, with political scientist James Morone, The Heart of Power: Health and Politics in the Oval Office, which chronicles presidential health policies from Teddy Roosevelt through George W Bush. Now he and Morone are out with a follow-up book called Whiplash: From the Battle for Obamacare to the War on Science, which covers the rather eventful last three administrations in health care. David Blumenthal, thank you so much for joining us. 

David Blumenthal: Oh, it’s my pleasure. What a great introduction. Thank you so much for that. 

Rovner: So, if it’s Congress that makes the laws, why is it that the president is so pivotal when it comes to health policy? 

Blumenthal: Well, people forget that there is only one official in the United States who is elected by all the people, and that is the president. That gives him â€” or someday her, we hope â€” a legitimacy, a symbolic authority, and an ability to rise above the din of Washington conversation to reach the American people and to build support or mobilize opposition to whatever an enterprising congressman or senator has in mind. Those same congressmen and senators really crave direction, most of them, from the president to know what that official’s priorities are, so they can line up behind it. They also want to know what the president might veto before they put a lot of effort into things. So all those things are reasons why presidents have a level of authority which is often underappreciated, especially in health care, where the day-to-day conversation often focuses on what a senator or a congressman or a committee chairman is saying. But in the end, unless the president is behind something important, it’s not going to happen in the Congress. 

Rovner: And pretty much everything major in health care has had a president spearheading it, hasn’t it? 

Blumenthal: Exactly. Some that have succeeded, like Medicare and Medicaid, Lyndon Johnson’s proposals, and some that have not, like the Clinton health plan. And then, of course, the Affordable Care Act, which was uniquely the product of President Barack Obama’s sponsorship, passion, enduring commitment, with a lot of help from Nancy Pelosi. 

Rovner: Can you talk a little bit about tinkering versus major reforms, and what you’ve learned from studying the last dozen or so major health reform debates? I know just in the 40 years I’ve been doing this, you know federal government has gone back and forth between We should try to do something big; no, we can’t do something big, so we should try to do something small; no, it doesn’t work if we do something small, we should try to do something big. It’s just been this constant swaying. 

Blumenthal: Well, one of the stories that we tell in both of our books is the story of the dance that has gone on over the ages between proponents of major health care reform and opponents. And this has typically been Democratic proponents and Republican opponents. And the story is this: Somebody in the Democratic Party proposes a massive health care reform proposal, and the Republicans scream socialism, government control, death panels, whatever, and propose an alternative that is smaller, more about free markets, more about the private sector, more about competition. The Democratic proposal goes down in flames, and then 20 years later, the Democrats come back and propose what the Republicans proposed the first time. Then the Republicans say socialism, government control, more limited government, more free market, more private sector. Same thing happens. It goes and goes and goes. What we saw with the Affordable Care Act was that the effort to get anything meaningful in the way of coverage, with a less governmentally oriented program, had run out its rope. There was just nowhere else for conservatives to go, which is why we got the Heritage Foundation proposing what Gov. Mitt Romney and Ted Kennedy accepted in Massachusetts as the basis for health care reform. So I think what happened was that â€” and this, I think, you saw mostly in the repeal-and-replace failure â€” the Republicans could not come up with anything that was more incremental, less comprehensive, and still made a difference for people’s insurance, especially on the issue of preexisting conditions. 

Rovner: They were OK with the repeal, just not with the replace. 

Blumenthal: Exactly, which is a story that we tell, in detail, in Whiplash. So incremental reform is the way Americans do business. We’ve now incremented our way to a four-legged stool that can achieve universal coverage. We have employer-sponsored insurance, which, of course, is subsidized by the government. We have Medicare, which is the third rail of health care politics. We have Medicaid, which can be expanded if states and the federal government choose, and we have the Affordable Care Act. And together, those got us, during the last years of the Biden administration, to 93% coverage of Americans. We have the tools to increment our way now to universal coverage, and that just seems â€¦ to be the way Americans want to do business, at least in health care. 

Rovner: How does that politicization of not just health insurance coverage but everything that surrounds health and health care becoming red or blue â€” how’s that going to impact the next big health debate? 

Blumenthal: Well, it’s red-blue. It’s also â€¦&²Ô²ú²õ±è;has racial overtones. It also has xenophobic overtones, with attitudes toward immigration. All these things now run straight through health care. I think there’s a difference between the psychology of opposition to vaccination and suspicion of the NIH and the people who come into play when it comes to the cost-control issue. Cost control is a bread-and-butter issue. Vaccination is about personal freedom, the sanctity of bodies, the freedom to say no. It has a different overtone and undertone to it. I think that the controversy over cost will be viewed much more as a traditional interest-group struggle, rather than as a red-blue struggle. And I think there’ll be some people from the Republican Party who will get to the point where their constituents are saying, We may have health insurance, but it’s not worth a damn because our deductibles are too high and our copayments are too high. We got to do something. And I think there’s a chance for a bipartisan solution on that score. 

Rovner: So we’re calling this series “How Would You Fix It?” How would you fix it if you could wave a wand and put aside all of the politics that I know you now know so well. But if you could do one or two things to make our health system function better, what would it be? 

Blumenthal: Well, you know, we, in writing the book, we spent some time with President Obama, who said, you know, I would have loved to have had “Medicare for All,” but I knew that was impossible. So we now have this Rube Goldberg apparatus providing us coverage, and I think we’re stuck with that. So what I would do first is make the Affordable Care Act as generous as it should have been and got to be after the Inflation Reduction Act. And I think if we did that and worked our way around the Supreme Court’s prohibition about requiring Medicaid expansion, which we almost did in the IRA â€” it’s little-known, but there was an alternative to expanding Medicaid that would have made it a federal program, added to the state program, and not be â€¦ go crosswise with the Supreme Court. That, plus â€¦&²Ô²ú²õ±è;so that would be just sort of make do everything we can to make coverage as universal as it could be. And then add to that a set of incremental changes that would reduce the cost of care. That would involve, I think, more regulation of private insurance to reduce the complexity of benefits and the complexity of billing. The Netherlands and Germany run their health systems through private insurance. They just standardize what the private companies offer. We could do that. In fact, the Affordable Care Act begins that process, especially in marketplaces like California, where private insurers are heavily regulated. 

The second is we need to break up the monopolies that have formed at the local level in the health care provider system, where you have virtually no competition based on price or anything else. We need to change the way we pay for care much more aggressively. Artificial intelligence has enormous potential to reduce administrative costs, but it also has an enormous potential to run them up. If the incentives in the system are not fixed, the incentives in the fee-for-service system will lead to using AI to maximize billing. 

Rovner: Which we’ve already seen. 

Blumenthal: Right, and not reduce administrative expenses. And so we need to give providers and other powerful interests an incentive to use AI to make the health care system work better, rather than to make it generate more revenue. So I think those are some of the things that we’ll need to do. So, build on what we have, the four-legged stool, the foundation for universal coverage we already have, and begin to take on the cost of care through changes that are, for which there are precedents elsewhere in the world, but which until now, we’ve been unwilling to take on. 

Rovner: David Blumenthal, we’ll see how this all plays out. Thank you so much. 

Blumenthal: Thank you, Julie. 

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

Knight: Sure thing. My story for extra credit is in The New York Times, and the title is “,” by Sarah Kliff and Margot Sanger-Katz, Sheryl’s colleagues. So this is a really interesting look at the ramifications of the 2020 No Surprises Act that was passed by Congress. And the whole point of this act was to protect patients from surprise medical bills. Because, you know, it still happens nowadays, but this law helps it. Basically, sometimes patients go to an out-of-network doctor, they might get stuck with a really, really high bill, and it’s really difficult for them to pay. So Congress wanted to do something about it. They did, and now, basically, insurers and doctors have to go to an arbitrator if there is a conflict about the price of the bill, if it’s an out-of-network bill. This article really had a lot of great data points on how it seems arbitrators are really favoring doctors in these decision-making and awarding doctors with these really high amounts of money for these medical procedures. So basically, the doctors offer an amount of money that the medical procedure should cost, and the insurers offer one, and the arbitrator just picks one of the two prices. And so doctors are really getting awarded way more. â€¦&²Ô²ú²õ±è;Some doctors are profiting off of this by certain types of procedures, such as breast reduction that was mentioned in the title. And so it was really fascinating. And a few lawmakers were interviewed, and they were like, Well, we didn’t really think about that happening, but at least patients are protected. I don’t know if Congress will do anything about it, but it’s a new twist in our health care system.  

Rovner: Yeah, I love this story because there’s been complaints about the arbitration system pretty much since the law passed. And I think it takes, you know, a story like this for everybody to say, Oh, my goodness, is that what’s happening? Alice, why don’t you go next? 

Ollstein: Yes, I have a[n] analysis from The Washington Post. It’s called “,” and it’s looking at these science and research grants from the National Institutes of Health, and even though Congress has largely protected that funding and approved increases, even where the White House pushed for decreases, that money is not going out, and it’s really not going out to certain researchers researching certain topics, chief among them things that impact women’s health. And this is partially, as the article gets into, a result of this war on what’s viewed as DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion]. And so research into conditions that primarily or solely impact women, like endometriosis, are seen as DEI and are therefore getting cut. And so it really gets into the toll that’s taking on these labs around the country that are, you know, potentially discovering breakthroughs, but are now in limbo and having to lay people off and has big consequences.  

Rovner: Another story that made me angry. Sheryl, you have one of Alice’s stories as your extra credit. 

Stolberg: I do. So this is from Politico by Alice and her colleague, Amanda Friedman: “.” And the reason I like this story is because it’s about Casey Means, and in how this â€” there’s a wave of attacks coming against her, kind of under the radar from the right, from abortion opponents, including the policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, and also people who, as we mentioned before, are perhaps raised questions about her embrace of psychedelics. And I think that what happens with Casey Means is really kind of a symbol, or it’s like a microcosm of what is going to happen with the MAHA movement. And yesterday, after the hearing, I asked Sen. Cassidy, who is kind of sitting on Casey Means’ confirmation, “When are we going to see a vote on Casey Means?” And he said, “No comment.” So I just think that this is something to watch, and I applaud Alice and her colleague for pointing out this kind of below-the-radar campaign to hold her up.  

Rovner: Yeah, really, really good story. All right. My extra credit, also from one of our podcast panelists, Rachel Roubein at The Washington Post. It’s called “.” And I love this story because it’s one of those “what seems simple is anything but” policy stories. What seems simple here is the idea that food stamps shouldn’t be used to pay for unhealthy food like candy and soda. But who determines what’s healthy and how is that decided? Thanks to a big pilot program from the Trump administration, two dozen states have received permission to make changes to the food and drink that’s eligible to be paid for using SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] benefits, and 10 states have now implemented restrictions. But it’s a lot harder than just saying you can’t buy soda and candy. In some states, Gatorade and even Pedialyte are ineligible, even though those are often given to nurse sick kids. In Iowa, KitKat and Twix bars are eligible because they’re made with flour and so they’re not technically candy. Some SNAP rules are so arbitrary that â€” and this is not part of Rachel’s story because it just happened â€” a bipartisan group of U.S. senators on Wednesday introduced the “Hot Rotisserie Chicken Act” to make sure that Costco’s famous $4.99 roasted bird remains available to those getting federal food assistance. We will watch to see if that flies. Sorry. Not really sorry. 

Rovner: OK, that is this week’s show. Thanks to our editor this week, Stephanie Stapleton, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. We also had production help this week from Taylor Cook. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts — as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me on Twitter , or on Bluesky . Where are you folks these days? Sheryl?  

Stolberg: I’m at @SherylNYTon , formerly Twitter, and . 

Rovner: Victoria. 

Knight: I’m  on X. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein:  on Bluesky and  on Twitter [X]. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer
Taylor Cook Audio producer
Stephanie Stapleton Editor

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This <a target="_blank" href="/podcast/what-the-health-443-rfk-robert-kennedy-jr-congress-hearings-april-23-2026/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2229462&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2229462
States Update Guardianship Laws To Keep Children of Immigrants Out of Foster Care /mental-health/the-week-in-brief-immigrant-children-guardianship-laws/ Fri, 17 Apr 2026 18:30:00 +0000 As family separations caused by immigration enforcement ramped up last year under President Donald Trump, I wondered what happens to the children whose parents are detained or deported. I found that some have been placed in foster care if they don’t have other family or friends to assume responsibility for them — but it’s not known how many. 

The federal government doesn’t track what happens to children after their parents are detained or deported, and state data varies. Independent news reports are scarce and likely undercount the issue. But there’s evidence that in many states some of the children are being placed in foster care. 

In Oregon, for example, there have been at least two cases in which children who were separated from their parents were placed into foster care by the state. Jake Sunderland, press secretary for the state Department of Human Services, said that before last fall, this “simply had never happened before.” 

Separation from a parent can be deeply traumatic for children and lead to a broad range of , including post-traumatic stress disorder. Some states have responded by updating their temporary guardianship laws to help immigrant parents better prepare care for their children in the event of their detention or deportation.

Lawmakers in New Jersey are to allow parents to nominate standby, or temporary, guardians in the event of death, incapacity, or debilitation. The proposal adds separation caused by federal immigration enforcement as another allowable reason. 

Nevada and California passed similar laws last year. 

Yet some parents are hesitant to participate, said Cristian Gonzalez-Perez, an attorney at Make the Road Nevada, a nonprofit that provides resources to immigrant communities. The hesitancy is out of fear that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents could access their personal information and use it to target them for detention or deportation.

My colleagues Claudia Boyd-Barrett, Renuka Rayasam, and Amanda Seitz reported on a case in which ICE used data from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement to detain parents under the impression they were reuniting with their children, highlighting the precarious situation for immigrant parents. 

Additionally, ICE detention makes it difficult to reunite parents with their children if they’ve been placed in foster care because reunification often requires court-ordered programs, said Juan Guzman, director of children’s court and guardianship at the Alliance for Children’s Rights, a legal advocacy organization in Los Angeles. Nominating a guardian is one way to ease immigrants’ feelings of helplessness when facing the threat of detention or deportation, Gonzalez-Perez said.

As President Donald Trump’s heightened immigration enforcement continues across the country, some states are updating temporary guardianship laws to keep the children of detained and deported immigrants out of state custody.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This <a target="_blank" href="/mental-health/the-week-in-brief-immigrant-children-guardianship-laws/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2228116&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2228116
Your New Therapist: Chatty, Leaky, and Hardly Human /mental-health/ai-chatbots-therapy-big-risks-few-regulations/ Fri, 17 Apr 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2228281

If you or someone you know may be experiencing a mental health crisis, contact the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by dialing or texting “988.”

Vince Lahey of Carefree, Arizona, embraces chatbots. From Big Tech products to “shady” ones, they offer “someone that I could share more secrets with than my therapist.”

He especially likes the apps for feedback and support, even though sometimes they berate him or lead him to fight with his ex-wife. “I feel more inclined to share more,” Lahey said. “I don’t care about their perception of me.”

There are a lot of people like Lahey.

Demand for mental health care has grown. Self-reported poor mental health days rose by 25% since the 1990s, analyzing survey data. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide rates in 2022 that hadn’t been seen in nearly 80 years.

There are many patients who find a nonhuman therapist, powered by artificial intelligence, highly appealing — more appealing than a human with a reclining couch and stern manner. with begging for a therapist who’s “not on the clock,” who’s less judgmental, or who’s just less expensive.

Most people who need care don’t get it, said Tom Insel, former head of the National Institute of Mental Health, citing his former agency’s research. Of those who do, 40% receive “minimally acceptable care.”

“There’s a massive need for high-quality therapy,” he said. “We’re in a world in which the status quo is really crappy, to use a scientific term.”

Insel said engineers from OpenAI told him last fall that about 5% to 10% of the company’s then-roughly 800 million-strong user base rely on ChatGPT for mental health support.

Polling suggests these AI chatbots may be even more popular among young adults. A KFF poll found about 3 in 10 respondents ages 18 to 29 for mental or emotional health advice in the past year. Uninsured adults were about twice as likely as insured adults to report using AI tools. And nearly 60% of adult respondents who used a chatbot for mental health didn’t follow up with a flesh-and-blood professional.

The App Will Put You on the Couch

A burgeoning industry of apps offers AI therapists with human-like, often unrealistically attractive avatars serving as a sounding board for those experiencing anxiety, depression, and other conditions.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News identified some 45 AI therapy apps in Apple’s App Store in March. While many charge steep prices for their services — one listed an annual plan for $690 — they’re still generally cheaper than talk therapy, which can cost hundreds of dollars an hour without insurance coverage.

On the App Store, “therapy” is often used as a marketing term, with small print noting the apps cannot diagnose or treat disease. One app, branded as OhSofia! AI Therapy Chat, had downloads in the six figures, said OhSofia! founder Anton Ilin in December.

“People are looking for therapy,” Ilin said. On one hand, the product’s name ; on the other, it warns in that it “does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, or crisis intervention and is not a substitute for professional healthcare services.” Executives don’t think that’s confusing, since there are disclaimers in the app.

The apps promise big results without backup. its users “immediate help during panic attacks.” it was “proven effective by researchers” and that it offers 2.3 times faster relief for anxiety and stress. (It doesn’t say what it’s faster than.)

There are few legislative or regulatory guardrails around how developers refer to their products — or even whether the products are safe or effective, said Vaile Wright, senior director of the office of health care innovation at the American Psychological Association. Even federal patient privacy protections don’t apply, she said.

“Therapy is not a legally protected term,” Wright said. “So, basically, anybody can say that they give therapy.”

Many of the apps “overrepresent themselves,” said John Torous, a psychiatrist and clinical informaticist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. “Deceiving people that they have received treatment when they really have not has many negative consequences,” including delaying actual care, he said.

States such as Nevada, Illinois, and California are trying to sort out the regulatory disarray, enacting laws forbidding apps from describing their chatbots as AI therapists.

“It’s a profession. People go to school. They get licensed to do it,” said Jovan Jackson, a Nevada legislator, who co-authored an enacted bill banning apps from referring to themselves as mental health professionals.

Underlying the hype, outside researchers and company representatives themselves have told the FDA and Congress that there’s little evidence supporting the efficacy of these products. What studies there are — and some companion-focused chatbots are “consistently poor” at managing crises.

“When it comes to chatbots, we don’t have any good evidence it works,” said Charlotte Blease, a professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University who specializes in trial design for digital health products.

The lack of “good quality” clinical trials stems from the FDA’s failure to provide recommendations about how to test the products, she said. “FDA is offering no rigorous advice on what the standards should be.”

Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard said, in response, that “patient safety is the FDA’s highest priority” and that AI-based products are subject to agency regulations requiring the demonstration of “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness before they can be marketed in the U.S.”

The Silver-Tongued Apps

Preston Roche, a psychiatry resident who’s , gets lots of questions about whether AI is a good therapist. After trying ChatGPT himself, he said he was “impressed” initially that it was able to use techniques to help him put negative thoughts “on trial.”

But Roche said after seeing posts on social media discussing people developing psychosis or being encouraged to make harmful decisions, he became disillusioned. The bots, he concluded, are sycophantic.

“When I look globally at the responsibilities of a therapist, it just completely fell on its face,” he said.

This sycophancy — the tendency of apps based on large language models to empathize, flatter, or delude their human conversation partner — is inherent to the app design, experts in digital health say.

“The models were developed to answer a question or prompt that you ask and to give you what you’re looking for,” said Insel, the former NIMH director, “and they’re really good at basically affirming what you feel and providing psychological support, like a good friend.”

That’s not what a good therapist does, though. “The point of psychotherapy is mostly to make you address the things that you have been avoiding,” he said.

While polling suggests many users are satisfied with what they’re getting out of ChatGPT and other apps, there have been about the service or encouragement to self-harm.

And or have been filed against OpenAI after ChatGPT users died by suicide or became hospitalized. In most of those cases, the plaintiffs allege they began using the apps for one purpose — like schoolwork — before confiding in them. These cases are being .

Google and the startup Character.ai — which has been funded by Google and has created “avatars” that adopt specific personas, like athletes, celebrities, study buddies, or therapists — are settling other wrongful-death lawsuits, .

OpenAI’s CEO, Sam Altman, has said up to may talk about suicide on ChatGPT.

“We have seen a problem where people that are in fragile psychiatric situations using a model like 4o can get into a worse one,” Altman said in a public question-and-answer session reported by , referring to a particular model of ChatGPT introduced in 2024. “I don’t think this is the last time we’ll face challenges like this with a model.”

An OpenAI spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.

The company has said it on safeguards, such as referring users to 988, the national suicide hotline. However, the lawsuits against OpenAI argue existing safeguards aren’t good enough, and some research shows the problems are . OpenAI its own data suggesting the opposite.

OpenAI is , offering, early in one case, a variety of defenses ranging from denying that its product caused self-harm to alleging that the defendant misused the product by inducing it to discuss suicide. It has also said it’s working to .

Smaller apps also rely on OpenAI or other AI models to power their products, executives told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. In interviews, startup founders and other experts said they worry that if a company simply imports those models into its own service, it might duplicate whatever safety flaws exist in the original product.

Data Risks

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ review of the App Store found listed age protections are minimal: Fifteen of the nearly four dozen apps say they could be downloaded by 4-year-old users; an additional 11 say they could be downloaded by those 12 and up.

Privacy standards are opaque. On the App Store, several apps are described as neither tracking personally identifiable data nor sharing it with advertisers — but on their company websites, privacy policies contained contrary descriptions, discussing the use of such data and their disclosure of information to advertisers, like AdMob.

In response to a request for comment, Apple spokesperson Adam Dema to the company’s App Store policies, which bar apps from using health data for advertising and require them to display information about how they use data in general. Dema did not respond to a request for further comment about how Apple enforces these policies.

Researchers and policy advocates said that sharing psychiatric data with social media firms means patients could be profiled. They could be targeted by dodgy treatment firms or charged different prices for goods based on their health.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News contacted several app makers about these discrepancies; two that responded said their privacy policies had been put together in error and pledged to change them to reflect their stances against advertising. (A third, the team at OhSofia!, said simply that they don’t do advertising, though their app’s notes users “may opt out of marketing communications.”)

One executive told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News there’s business pressure to maintain access to the data.

“My general feeling is a subscription model is much, much better than any sort of advertising,” said Tim Rubin, the founder of Wellness AI, adding that he’d change the description in his app’s privacy policy.

One investor advised him not to swear off advertising, he said. “They’re like, essentially, that’s the most valuable thing about having an app like this, that data.”

“I think we’re still at the beginning of what’s going to be a revolution in how people seek psychological support and, even in some cases, therapy,” Insel said. “And my concern is that there’s just no framework for any of this.”

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This <a target="_blank" href="/mental-health/ai-chatbots-therapy-big-risks-few-regulations/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2228281&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2228281
For Many Patients Leaving the ICU, the Struggle Has Only Just Begun /aging/post-icu-patients-pics-physical-cognitive-mental-health-aftereffects/ Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2180037 The accident happened in Pittsburgh on Nov. 16. Joseph Masterson, a lawyer who was just days from retiring at age 63, suffered cardiac arrest while driving, plowed into a guardrail, and lost consciousness.

Other drivers stopped, broke the car window, and pulled him to safety. A passing volunteer firefighter performed CPR until an ambulance arrived to take Masterson to UPMC Mercy hospital.

He spent 18 days in the medical intensive care unit there, 14 of them on a ventilator. He developed delirium, a common ICU condition, and needed antipsychotic drugs. Despite a feeding tube, he lost weight. “We honestly weren’t confident that he would pull through,” said Ron Dedes, his brother-in-law.

But he did. Masterson was discharged Feb. 1 and returned home with near-constant family support. Working diligently with several kinds of therapists, he has regained his ability to walk, despite lingering weakness, and to manage his personal care. His once-garbled speech has markedly improved. He can make himself a sandwich.

Now, “our biggest concern is his memory,” Dedes said. Masterson, who so recently handled complex legal matters, forgets conversations and events that happened a few hours earlier, said Patti Dedes, his sister. He can’t yet operate a microwave or place a phone call.

In an interview, he described himself, accurately, as “much, much better than I was” — but misstated his age. Screening tests after his discharge indicated cognitive impairment and depression.

Among critical-care doctors, prolonged symptoms like his are known as “post-intensive care syndrome,” or PICS. The fallout can be physical or psychological, as well as cognitive, and can persist for months or years.

More than are admitted to intensive care across about 5,000 American hospitals, and research shows that . Older age increases the odds.

Patients and families are often startled by these continuing difficulties. “The belief is that they’ll be discharged from the hospital and in two or three weeks, they’ll be back to normal,” said Brad Butcher, who was Masterson’s doctor and in the medical journal JAMA. “That doesn’t comport with reality.”

In fact, with greater ICU use and improved treatments — the Society of Critical Care Medicine estimates that their stays — the population likely to encounter the syndrome is growing.

“Everyone is grateful that the patient has survived,” said Lauren Ferrante, a pulmonary critical-care doctor and researcher at the Yale School of Medicine. “But that’s just the start of a long road to recovery.” In a study of patients 70 and older that she co-authored, within six months after discharge only about half had .

Intensive care patients face a . PICS symptoms — weakness, pain, neuropathy (tingling in arms and legs), and malnutrition — to , primarily anxiety and depression. like Masterson’s are commonplace, including problems with memory, attention and concentration, and language.

“For many people, surviving a critical illness is a life-altering experience,” Butcher said. Patients in intensive care after emergency or elective surgery also of new physical, mental, and cognitive problems a year later.

The same aggressive treatments that save lives contribute to the syndrome. Intensive care patients “have some sort of dramatic organ failure that requires immediate attention” and constant monitoring, explained Carla Sevin, a pulmonary critical-care doctor who directs the ICU Recovery Center at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

That could mean a breathing tube attached to a ventilator, which in turn often requires sedating drugs. Sedation “can precipitate delirium, and delirium is the key factor in cognitive symptoms,” Butcher said.

It doesn’t help that constant beeps and alarms from monitors and round-the-clock bright lighting disrupt sleep, and that restrictive family visiting hours deprive patients of reassuring faces and voices.

Gregory Matthews, a retired accountant in St. Petersburg, Florida, spent nearly a month in an ICU after a lung transplant in 2014. He still vividly remembers his hallucinations, including mice running across the wall and someone trying to frame him for drug running.

“One day, I thought a doctor was an assassin — I could see the rifle,” said Matthews, now 80. “So I jumped out of bed,” he said, and yanked out his IVs. The staff put his arms in restraints for days.

But immobilization exacts its own toll as patients quickly lose muscle mass and strength. “Our bodies were not meant to lie in bed all day,” Ferrante said.

Psychologically, “PTSD is pretty common, similar to what’s seen in combat veterans or sexual assault survivors,” Sevin said, referring to post-traumatic stress disorder. Families can suffer anxiety and depression along with the patients.

Alarmed by such discoveries, doctors and administrators at about 35 U.S. hospitals have established , where teams of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, therapists (physical, occupational, cognitive, speech), and social workers screen for a host of conditions and help guide patients through them.

Vanderbilt’s clinic saw its first patient in 2012. The Critical Illness Recovery Center at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, which Butcher founded in 2018, works with about 100 patients a year, including Masterson. Yale opened its clinic in 2022.

They rely on six practices recommended by the Society of Critical Care Medicine that are shown to . The measures call for changes such as using lighter sedation, getting patients up and moving earlier, testing their breathing daily to wean them from ventilators sooner, and removing restrictions on family visiting.

Clinics often offer support groups for patients and families. There’s evidence that keeping an ICU diary, in which patients and caregivers record their experiences, and engaging in exercise and physical rehabilitation after discharge.

Also on the clinics’ agenda: discussions of what other options patients might prefer if they face another critical illness, as many do. Would they agree to undergo intensive care and risk its aftereffects again? Or choose palliative care, which emphasizes comfort rather than cure? Some post-ICU patients remain permanently impaired.

Butcher, although he said that the use of the new practices needed to expand dramatically, sounded optimistic about the future of critical care. “We’re going to find better diagnostic tools, better preventive strategies, and better therapies,” he said.

For now, though, the ICU experience remains disorienting and sometimes traumatic. When Butcher asked 117 patients in his post-ICU clinic those next-time questions, many wanted to place limits on further medical interventions.

About a third would want to lower the level of aggressive care. Of those, about a quarter would want “do not resuscitate” and “do not intubate” orders, and almost 7% said they never wanted to return to an ICU.

Masterson is working hard to further his recovery. “I haven’t been out and about much,” he said. “I’ve been kind of homebound.” He hopes to get strong enough to resume running — he used to log 3 to 4 miles several times a week.

The future for patients contending with post-ICU syndrome often depends on their physical, mental, and cognitive health before their admission. Masterson’s previous fitness and cognitively demanding work bode well for his further progress, Butcher said.

His family remains alternatively hopeful and worried. “Down the road, what’s it going to be like?” Dedes, his brother-in-law, wondered. “We just take it day by day.”

The New Old Age is produced through a partnership with .

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This <a target="_blank" href="/aging/post-icu-patients-pics-physical-cognitive-mental-health-aftereffects/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2180037&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2180037
Readers Sound Off on Wage Garnishment, Work Requirements, and More /letter-to-the-editor/letters-to-editor-readers-nih-staff-cuts-work-requirements-march-2026/ Wed, 01 Apr 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2176405&post_type=article&preview_id=2176405 Letters to the Editor is a periodic feature. We welcome all comments and will publish a selection. We edit for length and clarity and require full names.


Who Really Collects in the Wage Garnishment Game?

I was a consumer bankruptcy attorney for years during the global financial crisis of 2008 (pre-Affordable Care Act). Around 40% of the bankruptcies were caused by medical debts uncovered by insurance. With the effectiveness of the ACA, the number of bankruptcies in Colorado plummeted.

My comment on “State Lawmakers Seek Restraints on Wage Garnishment for Medical Debt” (Feb. 20)? BC Services acts as if it is garnishing these wages to keep rural hospitals, medical providers, etc. in business. The likely reality is that BC Services (and other collection operations) takes “90-day-overdue” bills — which may or may not have ever been delivered to the patient; usually disregards whether the hospital has offered the patient a reasonable repayment schedule; and then keeps 50% or more of the debt, along with its attorneys’ fees and costs. The medical provider receives very little of the money sent to collections.

— Bill Myers, Denver


On Work Requirements: Working Out Solutions

Eighty hours a month works out to about 20 hours a week, and I think if people can work or study from home, they should be able to meet the requirements (“New Medicaid Work Rules Likely To Hit Middle-Aged Adults Hard,” Feb. 11). More importantly, though, “navigators” will help people get exemptions if they qualify. I wonder why there is so much moaning about the law and nothing about the means to fix the problems it creates. It seems like a lot of hot air. We know it’s a problem. So how about exploring solutions?

— Therese Shellabarger, North Hollywood, California


The Flip Side of a Drug’s Benefits

I read Phillip Reese’s report on anti-anxiety medications, adults who take them, and their concerns about this administration’s policies regarding them (“As More Americans Embrace Anxiety Treatment, MAHA Derides Medications,” Feb. 23). If the anti-anxiety medications provide solace to adults such as Sadia Zapp — a 40-year-old woman who survived cancer — then she should be able to continue them. Unfortunately, the same is not true for many other people, particularly patients such as myself.

When I was 16, I went through an unnecessarily painful and traumatic year. I was sent away from home three times, sent to a wilderness therapy “troubled teen industry” camp that has now been shut down, sent to a new boarding school that I hated, and was away from my family for many months. Of course, I felt depressed and anxious, so my psychiatrist at Kaiser prescribed citalopram. At first, it caused extreme agitation and violent ideation, stuff that is commonly reported to the point it has an . Thankfully, it calmed down. And when I lowered the dose, my life was calm, stable, and productive.

Unfortunately, that did not last long. Over time, the effects wore out, so I tried to go off. I was not given any safety instructions on how to taper slowly and safely, so I went off multiple times. Each time caused extreme withdrawal symptoms, including self-harm, crying spells, and worse depression than ever before. Also, the sexual “side effects” persisted and even worsened upon cessation to this day. It is a , and it is very rarely covered. While the worst symptoms of withdrawal went away, I still live with a worsened sexuality than a young adult my age is supposed to have.

Back to the article, which seems to focus on adults. Its only named profile is Zapp, and when it cites statistics, it begins at age 18. Solely showing statistics of adults is unethical because it obscures the high and rising prescription rates among minors. Minors are also more likely to suffer permanent developmental damage to their sexualities and experience suicidal ideation. This is a major problem that warrants further conversations.

When covering the downsides of SSRIs, the article mentioned only mild side effects, like upset stomach, decreased libido, and mild discontinuation effects, without covering the major concerns of suicidal ideation, akathisia, PSSD, and severe withdrawal. I believe that framing antidepressants as an unequivocal good is equivalent to framing them as an unequivocal evil; both misguide patients through harm and deception.

Lastly, I want to finish on this by the brilliant psychiatrist Awais Aftab.

— Eli Malakoff, San Francisco


A Rigged System?

Insurers pay these exorbitant amounts because they set them in the first place (Bill of the Month: “Even Patients Are Shocked by the Prices Their Insurers Will Pay — And It Costs All of Us,” March 3). They have been doing this for years. I learned this over 15 years ago, when I dislocated and broke my elbow. I had no insurance and, as a “self-pay” patient, paid the surgeon, hospital, and radiology center myself. They set the prices high enough that people will buy insurance out of fear, ensuring they make a profit.

The first thing I learned was that there is not a set price for all; for the insured, it is a fixed system controlled by contracts and codes. As a self-pay patient, the cost may vary.

It was late in the evening and I tripped over a snow shovel, slammed my arm up against a gate post, and it was hanging like a puppet without a string! I called an ambulance and, at the hospital, they strapped me up and told me that I must see the orthopedic surgeon the next day. He sent me to a radiology facility for an X-ray; I paid for it and took it to the surgeon. When I received a bill from the radiology center, I called to say that I had paid. They said it was for the radiologist (who, as far as I knew, never analyzed it). The contract with the insurance company required that every patient had to be billed, whether or not a radiologist reviewed scans. If not, they would lose their contract.

My elbow was dislocated, with a fracture, and I needed surgery. The surgeon’s office called the hospital for pricing, and he told me it would be about $2,000 for outpatient surgery. I called the hospital to confirm the appointment for outpatient surgery, and they wanted $8,000! When I objected, and told them what the surgeon had quoted, they checked. “Oh, you are a self-pay!” Cost would be $2,000. I gave them my card number and prepaid it before they could change their minds.

I had a friend in New Jersey who had the very same injury and surgery. She had insurance through her employer, and she paid more in copays than I paid when paying directly.

Insurance companies are SHARKS!

— Stephanie Hunt-Crowley, Chamberet, Nouvelle Aquitaine, France (formerly Frederick, Maryland)


US vs. Canada

Re: the article about nurses moving to Canada (“‘You Aren’t Trapped’: Hundreds of US Nurses Choose Canada Over Trump’s America,” Feb. 26). You neglect the “rest of the story” — or maybe you don’t know it? I had my medical office in Los Angeles for about 30 years and had dozens of Canadians come to L.A., where some had to self-pay for care, but chose to because of the superior level of medicine available. One man, a son of a gynecologist in Canada, had a draining abscess from a years-old appendectomy. The reason was, after investigation, that the Canadian practice had used silk suture (organic material), which can harbor microbes and carry a greater risk of infection. The trend has been to discontinue silk in favor of nylon. The Canadians were obliged to “use up” the silk suture they had before switching to nylon. The surgeons at my hospital were astounded.

— Kathryn Sobieski, Jackson, Wyoming


On the NET Recovery Device’s Track Record — And Detractors

I read your piece about the NET Recovery device with interest (Payback: Tracking Opioid Cash: “Maker of Device To Treat Addiction Withdrawal Seeks Counties’ Opioid Settlement Cash,” March 18), and I am grateful to you for pointing to one of our many success stories — the story of Michelle Warfield, whom the NET device helped get off opioids.

I also wanted to note a couple of instances where I see the facts differently than they were portrayed in your piece. Your piece seemed to imply that the NET device is new, and I wanted to note that the device has been around for decades (it helped Eric Clapton and members of The Who and the Rolling Stones get sober back in their heyday), and is based on a proven technology that stimulates both the brain and the vagus nerve to help patients with their cravings and withdrawal. There are countless studies that prove the power of neurostimulation, including that showed significant reductions in opioid and stimulant use without medication for a polysubstance population receiving at least 24 hours of stimulation.

I also noted you quoted detractors of our device, and I’d simply urge anyone looking at the issue of opioid addiction abatement to consider who those detractors are; organizations that now find themselves competing for grant dollars from counties increasingly choosing to fund innovation. It is not surprising that those with the most to lose financially would prefer the status quo. But the counties and jails leading this charge are doing so because they have seen what works, and their constituents, real patients, are the proof.

The success stories of our patients speak for themselves, and our only motivation at NET Recovery is to help as many people as possible get truly clean and sober by helping to break that initial grip the opioids have on them. When the NET device works, and it works an astounding 98% of the time (producing a clinically meaningful reduction in opioid withdrawal symptom severity in one hour), our patients are experiencing the return of choice and true freedom.

Thank you for your interest in our work and for the coverage you provide.

— Joe Winston, NET Recovery CEO, Costa Mesa, California


Education Is the First Step in Lowering Health Care Prices

After reading this article about making hospital prices more transparent, I realized the information alone could help drive medical prices down (“Trump Required Hospitals To Post Their Prices for Patients. Mostly It’s the Industry Using the Data,” Feb. 17). Your publication shows good use of evidence-based research — it’s timeless and informative.

As a student at Thomas Jefferson University on the path to serving in the health care arena, I understand the struggles and complexities of medical decision-making. In the medical setting, the topic of price is always overshadowed by patient care and clear communication on the part of both professionals and patients, and it does not reflect how patients would navigate comparison-shopping for care. Almost every patient relies on the help of a physician or gets help from an insurance network and not from online price matching.

I believe that many people should engage with this article even if they aren’t entering the health profession; it would benefit everyone. Although price transparency may help insurers and care providers more than patients, if their goal is to lower prices, they must look beyond the simple posting or sharing of prices. I appreciate the effort to try to bring awareness to this major issue and encourage thoughtful policy discussion about lowering medical prices.

— Jan Rodriguez, Philadelphia

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This <a target="_blank" href="/letter-to-the-editor/letters-to-editor-readers-nih-staff-cuts-work-requirements-march-2026/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2176405&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2176405
How the Trump Administration Uses Migrant Kids To Find and Detain Family Members /mental-health/the-week-in-brief-immigration-enforcement-migrant-kids-detention/ Fri, 27 Mar 2026 18:30:00 +0000 /?p=2174953&post_type=article&preview_id=2174953 The Trump administration is using migrant children held by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement to lure parents and relatives into immigration detention, whether or not they have a criminal record. 

In one example, a dad went to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in New Mexico, thinking he was going for an interview about reuniting with his children. Instead, agents put him in chains and sent him to a detention center. His 15-year-old son and 16-year-old daughter have now been in a federal shelter in Texas for more than a year. 

I spoke by phone with the father while he was at an immigration detention center in El Paso, Texas, where he was held for several months. He told me he was tricked. “They used my children to grab me.” 

What happened to him isn’t isolated. My colleagues Renuka Rayasam and Amanda Seitz and I found that federal law enforcement agencies are coordinating with the resettlement office to detain and deport immigrant caregivers. Attorneys say many, like this dad, are being arrested while trying to reunite with their kids. 

HHS, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Justice Department did not respond to questions about caregiver arrests.

Over two decades ago, Congress gave the HHS resettlement office responsibility for caring for children without legal status who arrive at the U.S. border alone or without a legal guardian, often fleeing violence, abuse, or persecution in their home countries. 

The move was intended to protect some of the most vulnerable immigrants. Lawmakers expected children’s well-being to be prioritized over immigration enforcement. 

But since President Donald Trump took office, that priority has shifted. As a result, children are languishing for months in government shelters and foster care, while their relatives are detained and deported. Some children are losing hope. 

In statements shared through attorneys, the daughter in Texas said she no longer wants to be around others and spends most of the time in her room. The son described having panic attacks and feeling that he’s missing out on life, whether it’s the opportunities he longs for — to learn English, to study science — or watching basketball with his family. 

Government shelters often lack sufficient resources, , and social workers say lengthy stays in these facilities can result in additional trauma. 

Their dad was released on bond this month after a federal judge said officials had unlawfully detained him. 

He will have to redo much of the process to reunite with his children. 

“This operation is designed to force parents to make an impossible choice between reuniting with their children and seeking safety,” said one of the dad’s attorneys, Chiqui Sanchez Kennedy of the Galveston-Houston Immigrant Representation Project, a nonprofit that helps low-income immigrants.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This <a target="_blank" href="/mental-health/the-week-in-brief-immigration-enforcement-migrant-kids-detention/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2174953&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2174953
Taking a GLP-1? Doctors Say Not To Forget About Movement and Mental Health /mental-health/healthq-glp1-weight-loss-drugs-mental-health-dosage-exercise/ Thu, 26 Mar 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2171523

LISTEN: Taking a GLP-1? Doctors say don’t forget to move your body and tend to your mental health, too.

Severe ankle pain drove Jelon Smart to start taking a weight loss injection a year and a half ago.

Smart was 285 pounds and worked as a caterer in Savannah, Georgia. After she’d been standing on her feet for long hours, her ankles would be “as swollen as a football,” she said. She was walking with a limp. An orthopedic doctor diagnosed her with Achilles tendinitis and recommended losing weight to mitigate the symptoms. Smart began taking the brand-name GLP-1 Ozempic.

The appetite suppression resulted in her shedding pounds quickly, at first.

“I lost 30 pounds initially without changing anything,” said Smart, 48. But then she found herself unable to shed additional pounds.

GLP-1s have quickly become one of the most popular types of weight loss drug in America. Nearly 1 in 5 people have taken them at some point, , a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. But doctors say it takes more than a regular shot for patients to achieve their weight goals in the long run.

Here’s what to know.

The Old-School Rules of Weight Loss and Health Still Apply

Regular exercise, smart food choices, plenty of sleep — those basic, healthy lifestyle choices are not only going to help you lose weight on a weight loss drug but also help you keep it off, said Dafina Allen, an  obesity medicine physician who runs a clinic in Saginaw, Michigan. For example, some people find that they eat less on a GLP-1, “but they’re not improving their health because they’re not exercising. They’re not improving the quality of the food they’re eating,” Allen said. The path to weight loss is also guided by hormones, metabolism, and genetics.

After her weight loss on Ozempic plateaued, Smart realized she needed to start moving her body, too.  “I’m in the gym now six days a week,” she said. “I went from 285 to 175” pounds. The swelling and pain in her ankle went away as well.

A before and after photo of Jelon Smart.
Jelon Smart, from Savannah, Georgia, lost 110 pounds after starting on Ozempic — but only after starting an intensive workout regimen, too. (Christopher Smart, Jennifer Davis)

Mental Health Matters, Too

The mind and body are deeply connected. Food and body image can be especially emotional, Allen said. “I can tell you about the patients that I helped lose 50 pounds, that I helped lose 100 pounds, and they still look in the mirror and are not happy.”

The key is seeking help for mental health along the way, said Gerald Onuoha, who practices internal medicine in Nashville, Tennessee. “Making sure that you’re talking to people about your problems, whether it’s a family member or a licensed professional, I think goes a long way,” he said.

Work With a Doctor To Closely Monitor Your Dosage

Onuoha said people can run into serious problems if they increase their GLP-1 dosage too quickly or don’t follow the recommended schedule. He’s seen patients come to the hospital with pancreatitis, gallstones, or acute kidney injury.  “I always ask patients that are on GLP-1s: How long have they been on them?” he said. “Are they adhering to the directions? Because those things determine whether or not you’re going to have those complications.”

Part of the issue, Allen said, is that GLP-1s are relatively easy to access — and often much cheaper — through online pharmacies or websites, but those providers may not educate patients about their dosage or side effects. “So they might just go online, find a random company that will ship it to their house, where they don’t even know what dose of the medication they’re taking, or even if the medicine is safe for them as the patient with the medical conditions they have,” she said.

People and Policy

GLP-1 drugs can be costly, and most insurance programs — public or private — don’t cover the medications for weight loss. Medicaid, the government program that covers 69 million Americans, covers GLP-1s for medically accepted conditions like diabetes, but only about a dozen state Medicaid programs cover GLP-1s for obesity treatment, . For older Americans with Medicare, the federal government is planning to allow temporary coverage of GLP-1s for weight loss starting in July.

Katherine Ruppelt at Nashville Public Radio contributed to this report.

HealthQ is a health series from reporters Cara Anthony and Blake Farmer, approachable guides to an unapproachable health care system. It’s a collaboration between Nashville Public Radio and Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This <a target="_blank" href="/mental-health/healthq-glp1-weight-loss-drugs-mental-health-dosage-exercise/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2171523&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2171523